Sydney Bristowe Sargon the magnificent

( Page 1 )

Mrs. Sydney Bristowe

Author of "THE OLDEST LETTERS IN THE WORLD"

( Page 2 )

E-BOOK

SARGON THE MAGNIFICENT

Mrs. Sydney Bristowe

Author of "THE OLDEST LETTERS IN THE WORLD"

[WBSG NOTE: Some typos due to scanner and text-recognition error may be present.

To purchase the actual book, go to: Sargon The Magnificent]

CONTENTS PART ONE

Chapter

Page

Introduction

I. Great Floods Have Flown

II. The Babylonian Inscriptions

III. A Necessary Explanation

IV. Pre Adamites

V. Unintentional Support

VI. Sargon of Akkad

VII. Sargon - King Cain

VIII. Sargon's Name

IX. Sargon's Date

X. Date Disputed

XI. An Improbable Theory

XII. The Sumerian Problem

XIII. Prof. L. King's Ultimatum Questioned

( Page 3 )

XIV. Suggested Reconciliation of 2 Theories

XV. The Great Conspiracy

XVI. The Babylonian Priests

XVII. The Origin of Mythology

XVIII. Euemerus Supported

XIX. The Root of Mythology

XX. Babylonian Gods and Goddesses

XXI. Cain the Sun God

XXII. Adar and Ares Connected with Cain

XXIII. More Links 'tween Merodach and Sargon

XXIV. Abel's Memory Insulted

XXV. Sargon Adopted by Akki

XXVI. "The Mystery of Iniquity"

XXVII. The Children of Bel

101

XXVIII. Suggestive Names

104

XXIX. Cain Under another Name

106

CONTENTS PART TWO

Chapter

Page

I. In the Grey Dawn of History

( Page 4 )

115

II. Cain's Penitential Hymn

118

III. Did Cain Found the Babylonian Laws?

123

IV. The Leaven of Malice and Wickedness

127

V. More About King Cain

130

VI. Was Cain in Crete?

133

VII. The Sad End of Sargon

142

VIII. Was Cain the Founder of China?

145

IX. Evidence Summed Up

150

X. The Picture Puzzle Made

152

Appendices

155

INTRODUCTION

About thirty years ago in a series of lectures a certain German professor, himself a higher critic,
announced his belief in the Divine inspiration of the first chapters of Genesis; his regret at the
attacks being made upon their authenticity by other professors; and his conviction that if a certain
discovery could be made it would largely help to counteract those attacks. He apparently did not
expect that such a discovery would be made; but I hope to show that when the cuneiform
inscriptions found in Babylonia and now available for anyone's inspection are studied from a
new point of view, that discovery is ours.

In support of this new point of view, extracts from works leading Assyriologists are quoted in
the following pages, and their translations of the inscriptions are given. It can scarcely be thought
presumptuous on my part if I suggest a new application of those inscriptions considering that the
deductions already drawn from them are indeterminate and unconvincing. While taking advan-
tage of them I make bold to suggest that their decipherers, like others before them, may
sometimes have "failed to see the wood for the trees."

That the writers, from whose works I quote, hold different views from my own naturally makes
any of their evidence that supports my views the more convincing because it is involuntary.
Since the history which they have deduced from Babylonian inscriptions is admittedly conjec-
tural, and rests upon a certain hypothesis described by one of them as almost incredible, it is well
that some other hypothesis should be tested, and I claim that my new version of Babylonian
history rests upon a much more reasonable one.

( Page 5 )

That a new interpretation should be welcome is suggested by Professor Sayce's words:

"Both in Egypt and Babylonia, therefore, we are thrown back upon the monumental texts which
the excavator has recovered from the soil, and the decipherer has pieced together with infinite
labour and patience.... The conclusions we form must to a large extent be theoretical and
provisional, liable to be revised and modified with the acquisition of fresh material or a more
skilful combination of what is already known." (The Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonian,
p.3)

And also by Professor T. Eric Peet, who writes:

"Archaeology can in no sense be termed an exact science, that is to say, its conclusions rarely
follow with mathematical certainty from its premises, and indeed but too frequently they do not
rise above the level of mere nebulous possibilities or probabilities. This state of things is partly
to be accounted for by the very nature of its subject matter, but also, in the opinion of the writer,
by the fact that archaeologists have hitherto made no attempt to come to any kind of agreement
as to the conditions which must be satisfied by a train of archaeological reasoning in order that
it may acquire cogency. We are doubtless all to blame in this, and in our defence it can only be
urged that the constant accumulation of fresh material has tended to distract our attention from
a really critical use of the evidence already available." (Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1922
No.8.)

Neither fresh material nor a skilful combination is offered in this little work, but a new
combination of the facts already known about ancient Babylonia taken in conjunction with the
Bible Records which I claim to be the Master key to the problem of the ancient civilization of
that country.

I have been asked to say that the Council of the B. I. W. F. does not associate itself with my views
about the pre-Adamites and the Deluge.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

[Not included in this version]

Cast of Double Headed Bust Frontispiece

Page

Naram-Sin Facing

Sumerian Royalties

Cylinder with Eight Figures

Adam, Eve and the Serpent

Cherubim's in Babylonian Art

Taking the Hand of Bel

Demeter with Little Pig

( Page 6 )

The Sun God, Merodach or Marduk

100

A "Sumerian"

102

Three Semites and a "Sumerian"

103

Trial of Adam

121

Babylonian Cylinder Seal

121

Naram-Sin, with Horned Helmet

142

Babylonian God

149

Babylonian Drawing, Small Head

149

Babylonian Libation Cup

149

I. GREAT FLOODS HAVE FLOWN

"Great floods have flown from simple sources, and great seas have dried when miracles have by
the greatest been denied."

It has been said that nothing worth proving can be proved, and certainly this applies to the theory
put forward in this little book; but I hope to interest the reader in my attempt to show that the
stories told in the first chapters of Genesis harmonize with the researches of modern archaeolo-
gists, and provide a key to some otherwise unsolved problems.

It has not been easy to marshal the mass of evidence collected here, and a certain amount of
reiteration of arguments and facts has been unavoidable; but I dare to think that after a careful
and open-minded consideration of these pages some at least of my readers will be convinced that
that mysterious personage, the great Babylonian monarch Sargon of Akkad, was none other than
the first murderer in history - Cain. By showing that Cain and Sargon were one and the same and
thus linking up the sacred and profane histories of the ancient world, I hope to refute the modern
teaching that the Bible story of the Garden of Eden is mythical.

Up to the present the Babylonian inscriptions and drawings have interested comparatively few
people, but those who accept my theory that Sargon of Akkad - who plays so large a part in them
- was Cain, will agree that they should be of universal interest; for, granting this, there emerges
from the tangled mass of evidence provided by those inscriptions and drawings a vast and
sinister figure whose influence upon mankind far eclipses that of any other character in secular
history. I shall endeavor to show that to his superhuman knowledge

must be attributed the pre-historic civilizations now known to have existed in different parts of
the globe, as well as the savage barbarism which accompanied them; and that to him must also
be attributed the institution of idolatry - that poisoned chalice "the Golden Cup" of Babylon,

( Page 7 )

which "made all the earth drunken" in olden times and whose dregs have still power to work
mischief among men.

Although modern scholars seem to ignore the possibility that Cain may have influenced the
history of the ancient world, three notable writers at the beginning of the Christian era (St. Jude,
Josephus and Philo) suggested that Cain's influence was evil and enduring; while a modern poet
reminds us that somewhere in the world, Cain's descendants must have worked out their tragic
destiny.

Lord Byron makes Lucifer say to Cain:
"First born of the first man
Thy present state of sin - and thou art evil -
Of sorrow - and thou sufferest - are both Eden
In all its innocence compared to what
Thou shortly mays't be; and that state again
In its redoubled wretchedness, a Paradise
To what thy sons' sons' sons, accumulating
In generations like to dust (which they
In fact but add to), shall endure and do. -
Now let us back to earth !"

And back to earth we too must come. To make poetry about Cain is one thing - to install him
suddenly in secular history, or to try to do so, is another. This book is inevitably controversial
and my task has been no light one in writing it, for I try as it were to build upon a site already
occupied and to clear the site while building. When I add that the building to be cleared away is,
in plain language, certain views set forth by well-known writers, my difficulties will, I am sure,
be fully appreciated. The courage required for such a formidable undertaking comes from those
discoveries, but also from the Book of Genesis. This conviction, which I regard as my

strength, will undoubtedly be looked upon by some people as a weakness; for it is now the
fashion to decry the first chapters of Genesis, to ignore the possibility of their Divine Inspiration,
to treat their historical information as fabulous, and to consider it unintelligent to believe in
anything of a miraculous nature.

It is taught, sometimes even by the clergy, that the Old Testament stories owe their origin to the
pagan traditions of Babylonia, but my object is to show that the beliefs and institutions of ancient
Babylonia, and of other lands as well, confirm the historical truth of the Bible instead of
discrediting it. I maintain that unless we accept its stories as true history we are, although "ever
learning... never able to come to a knowledge of the truth."

The men who ignore these stories are, however, accepted as authorities, they carry weight and
have the public ear; it may indeed seem bold to question their conclusions. These, however,
fortunately for my purpose, do not always agree and are often indefinite and liable to be changed
at any time to suit new theories brought forward. Sir James Frazer, for instance, has lately thrown
doubt upon the prevailing opinion held by Assryiologists that the Babylonian myths upon which
the Genesis stories are supposed to be modelled were evolved by the first inhabitants of that land,
and has suggested instead that they may have originated in Africa, travelled thence into Babylo-
nia and later on have found their way into the Hebrew literature.(**1) This conjecture he bases
on the recent discovery that traditions reminiscent of that literature, such as those of a fall of man
and a serpent tempter, exist among the tribes of the Tanganyika Territory in Africa. Considering,
however, that the earliest rulers in Egyptian history are now believed to have gone into Africa
from Asia (**2) it is surely, on the face of it, much more probable that those stories were taken
by them into Africa, and there corrupted into the grotesque traditions found among the African
tribes.

( Page 8 )

By comparing and contrasting the Biblical and Babylonian stories, and by bringing forward fresh
evidence (or at least evidence which has so far passed unnoticed), I hope to show that the Bible
stories do not owe their origin to Babylonian myths and legends, but that they are, on the
contrary, true history.

(**1) Gifford Lecture, Edinburgh. November 21st, 1924.
(**2) Ancient Egyptians, p.150. Dr Elliot Smith. The Religions of Ancient Egypt
and Babylonia, p.22. Professor Sayce, etc.

II. THE BABYLONIAN INSCRIPTIONS

Before looking for Cain in the Babylonian inscriptions a short account of those inscriptions, of
their arrival in England and America, and of the effect they produced there, must be given.

On the site of the palace of King Assur-bani-pal, where once had stood the city of Sennacherib
King of Assyria, thousands of brick tablets have been found, upon some of which, inscribed in
cuneiform characters, are mythological versions of the stories told in the Book of Genesis about
the Creation of the World, the Garden of Eden and the Deluge. The date of the tablets is thought
to be about 700 B.C. and they are believed to be copies of much older writings which Assur-bani-
pal had caused to be collected from all parts of his kingdom and stored in his library. Many of
these fragments were brought to England towards the end of the last century, and the late Mr.
George Smith of the British Museum was the first to transliterate and make known to the public
these "Genesis stories."

Although these Babylonian stories are replete with the names of gods and goddesses, they are in
some ways so like those in the first chapters of Genesis that they were joyfully received at first
as new evidence of the truth of the Bible records. Professor Kittel of Leipzig writes:

"When, therefore, George Smith was fortunate enough to discover in the year 1887 cuneiform
inscriptions containing the account of the Flood, the expressions of delight beyond the Channel
and Atlantic knew no bounds. Sermons from the pulpit and whole columns from the Daily Press
were filled with accounts of the discovery... every doubt of the sceptic and every sneer of the
mocker, it was thought, in regard to the Bible would be utterly and inevitably confounded." In
1903 he wrote:

"A very different picture presents itself before our eyes today. A period of sobriety and in many
cases of depression has followed that of jubilation and enthusiasm. In the family of oriental
studies Assyriology is the latest born. It need not be a matter of wonder, therefore, if in individual
instances representatives of the new knowledge should not have always been able to shake off
the child like love of sensation. Formerly men were attracted to the study of the monuments with
the hope of finding arguments on behalf of the Bible: now, the contemporaries of Nietzsche and
Haeckel find there is a much greater prospect of attention being directed to the new learning if it
should succeed in adducing evidence against both the Bible and Christianity." (Babylonian and
Oriental Excavations, pp 12- 13)

This is surely a grave accusation, although so dispassionate in tone. Professor Kittel was one of
the first and keenest German higher critics: his work, The History of the Hebrews, was even
considered too destructive by our own higher critic Professor Kelly Cheyne. The fact that
Professor Kittel retained his faith in the Divine revelation of the Old Testament stories after
analysing and comparing the Biblical and Babylonian versions, should carry weight with the
most sceptic. An examination of the Babylonian story of the Creation of the World shows the
justice of his opinion that the Assyriologists, who first suggested that the writer of Genesis
borrowed his ideas from Babylonia, did not really believe that proposition, but only wished to
advertise their new branch of science Professor Kittel's summary of the Babylonian story is as
follows:

( Page 9 )

"When on high the heavens were not named, and below the firmament was not yet designated
...then were the gods formed ...In the beginning the chaotic waters, called Tiamat, held sway.
They were the enemies of order. As the gods wished to create from these an orderly world,
Tiamat arose as a dragon against them. Ignominious terror seized the gods, until Marduk the god
of the Spring-sun, undertook to battle with the monster and its companions. He conquered it, cut
the dragon into two halves, and made out of one the heavens, and of the other in like manner the
earth, upon which he then brought forth animals and men." (Babylonian and Oriental Excava-
tions, p.39)

The effusion, of which this summary gives some idea, is equalled in absurdity by what is called
the Sumerian story of the Creation of the World, also found in Babylonia, and considered to be
the origin of the above version and that given in the Old Testament.

To appreciate the absurdity of the "Sumerian version" of the Creation, etc., Professor Leonard
King's work, Legends of Babylon and Egypt, should be studied. The first lines are typical of all
"Sumerian" writings:

"When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsagga
Created the black headed (i.e. mankind), to produce
The animals, the four-legged creatures of the field,
They artfully called into existence."
(Legends of Babylonia and Assyria, p.56, L. King)

That the sublime account of the Creation given in Genesis was inspired by such utter nonsense
is surely unthinkable. The perfect agreement of the Bible account with the discoveries of modern
science should, one would think, convince anyone that the writer was divinely inspired. Since
that perfect agreement is not always realized the subject is dealt with in Appendix A.

In answer to Professor Delitzsch's insinuation that the Biblical account of the Creation is only a
re-arrangement of Babylonian myths, and that some Israelitish scribe's conception of God was
inspired by the Babylonian deities, Professor Kittel writes:

"It must, moreover, be always borne in mind that it is psychologically inconceivable that the
lower forms of religion, which are glibly assumed to be the original - such as fetishism,
totemism, animism, etc. - could have come into existence without the previous conception of a
higher power behind them, that is, of God Himself. That a stick, or a stone, or an animal could
be regarded as God cannot have been a primary, but only at most a secondary conception. It is
certain that to primitive man a stone in the first instance was a stone, wood was wood, and
animal, and he could with his own eyes see that these things had no inherent power of themselves
to make alive, or kill, or produce growth. But when once he had obtained the conception "God,"
he might readily suffer it in course of time to degenerate, so that this power, while it is invisible
became associated in his mind with visible things, such as trees, stones, or animals ...In the words
of late F. Max Muller0- words often quoted and frequently with contempt, but never yet refuted-
"The human mind would never have conceived the notion of gods if it had not first of all
conceived the notion of God." (p.52)

Professor Kittel's final conclusion is that the Bible and the Babylonian stories all come from the
same source and have a common origin from which, proceeding in two streams and subjected to
independent development, they issue respectively in a nature myth and a monotheistic religion
with an ethical base. He describes as follows one way in which the attacks upon the Divine origin
of the Bible might be successfully combated.

"There is one problem whose solution would well reward the cuneiform investigator, would
surpass all previous discoveries and excuse all disillusions and false conclusions, and that would
be the discovery that in the grey dawn of history there were actually men in existence who still

( Page 10 )

possessed ...the inheritance of an exalted knowledge of God, which had at some time or other
been imparted to mankind. For that stones, or trees, or even dead men should have awakened in
mankind the earliest presentiment of God, or should have attracted it to themselves, we cannot
allow ourselves to be persuaded, no matter how frequently and how loudly this theory is
maintained." (Excavations in Babylonia, etc., p.60)

Professor Kittel has hit upon the only way, as it seems to me, of refuting the attacks upon the
authenticity of the Genesis stories. He saw clearly that what was wanted to support the Bible
testimony in these incredulous days was involuntary evidence from ancient pagan monuments.
Although he appears to have had little hope of that evidence being found, I claim that it has been
discovered inadvertently and passed over almost without comment, because its full significance
has not been recognized. The fact that men who possessed the knowledge of God existed in
Babylonia in the "grey dawn of history" is proved by a few cuneiform tablets, whose existence
I conclude was unknown to Professor Kittel. Their inscriptions strongly resemble the Hebrew
literature and betray the knowledge of One God, although they were found among hundreds of
other tablets of an entirely polytheistic character.

These few monotheistic inscriptions (which will be given later) are said by Assyriologists to be
copies of much earlier ones, dating back to before 2000 B.C., and it is remarkable that the pagan
priests who inscribed them finally (and in some cases left their mark upon them) in the seventh
century B.C. allowed them to come down as evidence that the knowledge of God had once
existed in their land, where at that time hundreds of false gods were worshipped. When Professor
Kittel says "This is an investigation which cannot be pursued to a definite conclusion by
historical means" I cannot agree with him; my object is to show that, on the contrary, historical
means are at hand if a fresh interpretation is given to the Babylonian inscriptions; and the first
question to be discussed is how did the knowledge of God arrive in Babylonia, and who took it
there. We gather from the Bible that the exalted knowledge of God was handed down by the
descendants of Seth, the third son of Adam and the ancestor of Noah; and it seems probable that
after the Deluge it was preserved by Noah's descendants in Northern Syria, and made known to
Moses by his father-in-law Jethro the Midianite who, it seems, may have come from that part of
the world. (**1)

On the other hand, there is ample evidence in the Babylonian inscriptions, if my new interpreta-
tion of them is accepted, to prove that the other stream of knowledge was taken into Babylonia
by none other than Cain, that it there became obscured by the system of fables and myths now
known as mythology, and that it was Cain who originated that system by establishing the first
false gods. If this new interpretation is accepted we have substantial evidence that one of the
earliest Biblical characters played a prominent part in the secular history of the ancient world,
and we can reject the assertions that the first chapters of Genesis were derived from Babylonian
myths. Like the pieces of a picture puzzle the evidence lies before us - waiting to be put together.
Excavators and deciphers have provided the pieces of the puzzle, but it is for us to make the
picture.

(**1)The Hittites, p.9. Dr Cowley suggests the possibility that the Midianites of the Bible were
the Mitanni of Northern Syria mentioned in the Amarna Tablets. Higher Critics admit the
probability that Jethro greatly influenced Moses. We read: The legislation on Mount Sinai
(Hored) which apparently occupies a very important place in tradition... is really secondary...
more prominence is evidently to be ascribed to the influence of the half Arabian Jethro or
Hobab" (Ency. Brit. Ed.XI, "Moses") Jethro the Midianite is also called Hobab the Kenite, and
we read: "Variant tradition would seem to show that the Kenites were only a branch of the
Midianites." (Ency. Brit., Ed. XI "Kenites"

( Page 11 )

III. A NECESSARY EXPLANATION

Two of the most recent writers upon the Babylonian inscriptions unintentionally support Profes-
sor Kittel's opinion that the Genesis stories came down in "two streams," and also my theory that
one stream came down through the descendants of Seth and the other through Cain in Babylonia.
Before quoting their remarks, however, I must explain why they call the first possessors of the
"very ancient knowledge" Semites; for if they were the family of Adam they should, of course,
be called after him and not after Shem (or Sem), who lived much later.

The Cambridge History tells us that the problem of the term Semitic is acute, that it is "More
convenient than accurate and is derived from Shem, a son of Noah the hero of the Deluge." (Vol.
I, p.184)

but it offers no solution of the problem. Surely it is the use made of the word which is puzzling,
and not the word for itself, for nothing could be more self-evident than its meaning "related to
Shem or his reputed descendants." (**1) Why, for instance, do Assryiologists describe Sargon
of Akkad as Semitic, when, according to monumental evidence, he lived about 3800 B.C.; long
before Shem's time? The ambiguous use of the word Semite can be traced to two German
professors (**2) who, about the year 1790, proposed that thenceforth the word should mean
oriental. Unfortunately, later scholars, following the German lead, use the word Semitic at one
time (especially in connection with languages) as meaning oriental and at other times as meaning
related in some way to Shem, and this causes confusion. If, as I claim, Sargon was Cain, he
should be called an Adamite rather than a Semite, and his subjects who are called Sumerians or
Akkadians by Assryiologists (**3) on account of the geographical terms Sumer and Akkad
found in the inscriptions were, of course, pre-Adamites.

Poets and painters have depicted Cain as going into exile accompanied by an Adamite wife and
family, but the Bible leads us to infer that before the birth of Seth only Cain and Abel had been
born to Adam and Eve. We are prepared, therefore, to find that Cain had settled among a
non-Adamite race when he built a city and founded a family; and, as we shall see, modern
discoveries go to prove this.

(**1) Imperial Dictionary.
(**2) Century Dictionary. Semitic.
(**3) Professor Waddell says that the word Sumer was used in Babylonia "solely as a territorial,
and never apparently as an ethnic title," and quotes Professor Sayce's opinion that it was the same
word as Shinar (the Biblical name for Babylonia). Asiatic Review, April 1926.

IV. PRE-ADAMITES

Here another digression becomes necessary. It is generally thought that the Bible teaches that
Adam was the first human being, but in that case it would seriously contradict itself in the fourth
chapter of Genesis, although that chapter contains (as one of the latest dissectors of the Bible
shows) (**1) one unbroken narrative. In that chapter Cain says:

"My punishment is more than I can bear...

Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth... and it shall come to pass,
that every one that findeth me shall slay me." (Authorized Version.)

Since, according to the Bible, Cain and his parents were the only Adamites in existence at that
time, he must be understood to refer to pre-Adamites - unknown people among whom he was
being driven forth; and we are told that a mark was put upon him as a protection against those
people. This shows that, although we may assume that Adam was the first man into whom God
breathed a "living soul," he was not the first human being upon the earth.

( Page 12 )

As Cain is afterwards said to have built a city and called it after his eldest son, he must
presumably have gained an ascendancy over those pre-Adamites, although he went alone
amongst them. If, as Professor Sayce thinks probable, Babylonia was the country to which Cain
journeyed (**2) and if, as the same authority suggests, the first inhabitants of that country were
blacks (**3), it is easy to imagine Cain, a white man endowed with superhuman knowledge and
physique and rendered invulnerable by some divine talisman, taking command over those
pre-Adamites; and that he did so seems proved by the fact that he built a city and called it after
his son Enoch.

(**1) Dr. Moffat.
(**2) See Pg. 27
(**3) "As, however, M. Dieulafoy's excavations on the site of Susa have brought to
light enameled bricks of the Elamite period on which a black race of mankind is
portrayed, it may mean that the primitive population of Chaldea was black
skinned." (Hibbert Lectures. p.185. 1887)

We see, therefore, that the Bible sanctions the belief in pre-Adamites, and that the oldest
monuments in the world indicate that they were blacks. In fact both the Bible and modern science
confirm these assumptions. The Bible, by showing that only eight of Adam's race were saved in
the ark, demands a belief in a previous black race to account for the existence of blacks in later
history, for how could the Ethiopian who, the prophet remarks, could no more change his skin
than the leopard his spots, have descended from Noah? Science, by discovering the fundamental
physical differences between the black and white races, has shown the fallacy of the old idea that
they had a common origin(**1), and that either the white race was evolved from the blacks or
the blacks were sunburned brothers of the white men.

My claim that the black race was a separate creation previous to Adam may be thought to
contradict St. Paul's statement that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men"; I must,
therefore, explain my belief that the Apostle only referred to white people - my contention being
that the word man (used synonymously with Adam in Genesis II) (**2) distinguished Adam
from the pre-Adamites, and has continued to distinguish his descendants from the black race all
through history. Do we of the present day ever call a negro a man without using the adjective
black? In 2 Sam. xix, 12, Isa. xlvi,8, and Cor xvi,13, the word man is used as a distinction; just
as we say, "like a man," "be a man," or, "he is a man."

The fact that the word "Man" meant a thinker (**3), suggests that the "living soul" breathed into
Adam raised him above some previously created race. In Sanskrit literature the first man is called
Manu or Menu. (**1) It will be shown later that the monuments support my theory that the word
"man" distinguished Adam's race from the pre-Adamites. (**3)

(**1)"In the texture of bone, the architecture of the skull, the nature of the
asymmetry of the body and the character of the variations - in these and many other
respects there is evidence of the profound gap that separates the Negro from the
rest of mankind." (Ancient Egyptians. Elliot Smith p.73)
(**2) "Adam, in Hebrew as in Assyrian, signifies 'man'." Sayce. The First Book of
Moses called Genesis. Appendix.
Century Dictionary Man.
(**3) Professor Max Muller writes: "Man, a derivative root, means to think. From
this we have the Sanskrit Manu, originally the thinker, then man." (Lectures. Vol
I.p.425)

Just as the discovery that a black race existed at the beginning of history (**3) supports the
Bible's testimony that although Adam was the first man he was not the first human being - so
does the continued existence of that black race prove that the Deluge was not universal. Noah's

( Page 13 )

sons were surely white men, therefore the "Hamites" of later days must have been the result of
the intermarriage of Ham's family with some black race which had survived the Deluge.

In the Bible story of the Deluge the meaning of the writer has obviously been misinterpreted by
the translators of the Authorized Version. The Hebrew word eretz has been translated by them
"the earth" or "all the earth," which has caused us to think that the Bible teaches that the Deluge
was universal, and destroyed every human being and animal in the whole world with the
exception of Noah's family. The word eretz however, also means "country," "land" or "district",
and is used in that sense in the story of Cain, who says:

"Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth."

In this sentence the word eretz is translated by Ferrar Fenton "this land," and by Dr. Moffat "the
country," which are obviously better translations.

One commentator says of the word eretz: "As in may of these passages it might seem as if the
habitable globe were intended, the use of so ambiguous a term as "the earth" should have been
avoided and the original rendered by "land," as in Lev.xxv,23 = Isaiah xxiii, and elsewhere."
(Kitto's Cyclopedia of Bible Literature. Earth.)

(**1) "Menu-Swayambhuva is certainly Adam; and he is described as preceding by
several generations Menu-Satyvrata, who is as certainly Noah." (Origin of Pagan
Mythology. Vol. II, p.102. Faber.)
(**2) p.156, p.136
(**3) See p.15 and Ancient Egyptians.

G. Elliot Smith.That the writer of Genesis did not intend to teach that the Deluge was universal
can scarcely be doubted, for if it had been universal and if only Noah's family had been preserved
out of the whole world, not only would the existence of the black races have been inexplicable
but also that of the descendants of the pre-Noachian giants (the Nephilim or monsters) found in
Palestine in the time of Moses and Joshua. (**1)

We may therefore conclude that when Noah was told that "all men" and "all flesh" upon the
"earth" (**2) were to be destroyed only the Adamites and the animals in the district inhabited by
them were referred to. Wild beasts would naturally have been exterminated in that district, so we
may dispense with the curious picture of every kind of wild beast processing into the ark, for
obviously Noah was only commanded to preserve the animals useful to mankind, which had
been allowed to remain in the district populated by the Adamites. (**3) It is surely easier to
accept these explanations of the seeming contradictions in the Book of Genesis than to allow that
the Bible contradicts itself.

It is hoped that this digression will serve its purpose in persuading the reader that both the Bible
and Science, as well as common sense, justifies the hypothesis that Cain settled among black
pre-Adamites in "the Land of Nod" (Babylonia) after his expulsion from the land of his birth.

(**1) Num. xiii,33. Joshua xii,4, and xiii,12
(**2) See Appendix.
(**3) See Appendix B.

V. UNINTENTIONAL SUPPORT FOR MY THEORY

The latest writers upon the Babylonian inscriptions unintentionally support my theory that while
the knowledge possessed by Adam was preserved in Seth's branch of the family, in the form
made familiar to us by the Bible, it was taken into Babylonia by Cain and there parodied. To
appreciate their support, however, we must substitute the word Adamites for the word Semites

( Page 14 )

in the following quotations, for the writers are speaking of people who lived before Shem and
who therefore cannot accurately be called Semites.

Dr. Clay, in 1923, published a book in America, in which he says:

"Assryiologists, as far as I know, have generally dismissed as an impossibility the idea that there
was a common Semitic tradition, which developed in Israel in one way and in Babylonia in
another. They have unreservedly declared that the Biblical stories have been borrowed from
Babylonia, in which land they were indigenous. To me it has always seemed perfectly reasonable
that both stories had a common origin among the Semites, some of whom entered Babylonia,
while others carried their traditions into Palestine." (The Origin of Biblical Traditions. A.T.
Clay. P.150. 1923)

Professor Delaporte of Paris, who holds the same opinion, published the following statement in
1925:

"If the theory that the first Semites to settle among the Sumerians were a branch sprung from the
group of the Western Semites be confirmed... then the Pan-Babylonian thesis falls to the ground
completely. The civilization of Israel would then no longer be wholly a reflection of that of
Babylon; the traditions preserved in the Book of Genesis would not be importations from
Chaldea; on the contrary, it would be the Semites who introduced them in the last stage of their
eastward wandering to the Sumerians and the latter who adopted them." (Mesopotamia, p.355)
It will scarcely be denied that these views pave the way for my claims that Cain took knowledge
(which he shared with his parents) into Babylonia, and that the inscriptions which have been
regarded as the origin of the Genesis stories are the result. They also support Professor Kittel's
opinion that the knowledge imparted to man in the beginning has come down in two streams, on
one hand through the Hebrews, and on the other through the Babylonians.

VI. SARGON OF AKKAD

My claim that Cain was the great Sargon about whom Babylonian inscriptions have much to say,
invites adverse criticism and perhaps ridicule from those who see no connection between early
Babylonian history and the first chapters of Genesis. Since, however, George Smith (the first
decipherer of the cuneiform inscriptions) and Professor Sayce (**1) identified the Babylonian
hero Izdubar or Gilgames with the Biblical Nimrod, and since Noah appears under another name
in Babylonian story of the Deluge, it can hardly be regarded as incredible that Cain should also
appear in the inscriptions, especially as the name Sargon may, as we shall see, be the Babylonian
for "King Cain."

Professor King considered that the Babylonian and Egyptian legends were based upon true
history; he writes:

"There is another element in many of their legends which must not be lost sight of, and that is
the substratum of historical fact which underlies the story and was the nucleus around which it
gathered. Echoes from the history of the remote past may perhaps be traced..." (Books on Egypt
and Chaldea, Vol 4, p.198)

To invite at the outset a certain amount of confidence in my theory I mention here the following
indications which will be dealt with more fully later. To begin with, Professor Sayce's opinion
that Cain may have built the Babylonian city of Unuk or Erech shows that there is nothing
improbable in my claim that Babylonia was the Biblical "Land of Nod" to which Cain journeyed;
and allowing that Cain built that Babylonian city, the fact that Sargon is said in inscriptions to
have reigned in it, at once connects the two. (**2)

( Page 15 )

(**1) In the Hibbert Lectures, 1887 (p8), Professor Sayce says: "There are grounds
for thinking that Mr. George Smith was right in seeing in him (Gilgames) the
prototype of the Biblical Nimrod." He seems, however, to have changed his
opinion, for in Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia (p.447) he says that
Assyriologists were "long seduced" into trying to identify Gilgames with Nimrod,
but that "it was not with him but with the Greek Herakles that the Babylonian hero
was related." My suggestion is that both these pagan heroes may have represented
Nimrod, for, as I show later, the Biblical characters appear under different names
in the mythologies of Babylonia and Greece.
(**2) Cambridge History. Vol I p. 404

According to another authority, the civilization of Babylonia arrived there suddenly and unac-
countably, as Cain would have done; while the Babylonians relate how Sargon arrived mysteri-
ously in Babylonia; that he was a gardener when young and reigned in later years over people
called "the men of the black headed race" (**1); all of which agrees with the assumption that he
was Cain (the tiller of the ground) who settled among black pre-Adamites.

Another important fact is that Sargon's language (Ancient Babylonian) resembled Hebrew,
which was presumably that of Cain. Professor Sayce writes:

"There is, however, one Semitic language which has the closest affinities to Hebrew and this is
also the language in which we possess records older than those of the Hebrew scriptures. I need
hardly say I am referring to Assyrian (i.e. Babylonian)." (**2) (Hibbert Lectures, p.46)

Amazing things about Sargon have been gathered from the Babylonian inscriptions, and at least
one portrait of him has been found, which is thus described:

"Only one sculptured monument of Sargon has been recovered, it is a large triangular monolith
found at Susa; the king, according to Semitic fashion, has a long beard reaching to his waist,
heavy moustaches and his long hair is rolled into A huge chignon at the back of his neck."
(Cambridge History, Vol.I.p.408)

(**1) Hibbert Lectures,1887, p.27. (or the Black-heads.) See p.28.
(**2) "It is usually called the Assyrian, after the name of the country where the first
and most important excavations were made; but the term 'Babylonian' would be
more correct, as Babylon was the birthplace of this language and of the civilization
to which it belonged." (Ency. Brit. Ed XI Semitic Languages.)

Professor King says that if: "Any one point in early Babylonian history was to be regarded as
certainly established it was the historical character of Sargon of Agade... Sargon's reign forms
the most important epoch in the early history of his country." (Sumer and Akkad, p.216)

Dr. Hall writes:

"Few monarchs of the ancient world are so well known to us moderns who are interested in these
subjects as Sargon of Agade, and we may say that to the Babylonian he was their hero of heroes,
their Menes, Charlemagne or Alfred the Great." (Ancient History of the Near East, pp.20-30)
In the Cambridge History we read:

"The fame of Sargon was such that a range of mountains in the Lebanon region from which
frankincense (lupanu) was obtained, was named the Mountain of Sargon... Sargon divided his
vast empire from the lower sea to the upper sea, from the rising to the setting of the sun into
districts of five double hours march each, over which he placed the "sons of palace." By these
delegates of his authority he ruled the hosts of the lands altogether." (Vol. I, p 406)

( Page 16 )

My suggestion is that these "sons of his palace" were Cain's own descendants, and that they
helped him to rule the inferior race (the pre-Adamites). The inscriptions show that Sargon made
war against people of his own race (**1) and took prisoners with whom he populated some of
his cities. It is probable that he had Adamite wives and that some of those "sons of his palace"
were pure Adamites, (**2) as the monuments show his son Naram Sin to have been. (See
Illustration.)

We read that Sargon:

"Made successful expeditions and that with the conquered peoples of those countries he peopled
Akkad." (Stories of the Nations: Chaldea, p.205. Ragozin.)

(**1) Sumer and Akkad. p.249. L. King
(**2) See Appendix C

Professor King writes:"In some versions of his new records Sargon states that 5,400 men daily
eat bread before him'... though the figure may be intended to convey an idea of the size of
Sargon's court, we may perhaps see in it a not inaccurate statement of the total strength of his
armed forces." (Legends of Babylon and Egypt. p.9.)

The following statements show the highly civilized state of Babylonia in the time of Sargon of
Akkad.

The Times History says: "Babylonian art, however, had already a high degree of excellence; two
seal cylinders of the time of Sargon are among the most beautiful specimens of the gem-cutters'
art ever discovered. The empire was bound together by roads, along which there was a regular
postal service, and clay seals which took the place of stamps are now in the Louver bearing the
names of Sargon and his son. A cadastral survey seems to have also been instituted... It is
probable that the first collection of astronomical observations and terrestrial omens was made
for a library established by Sargon." (Vol I, p.362)

We also find that "transparent glass seems to have been first introduced in the reign of Sargon."
(Ency. Brit.Vol 3 Ed.2. Babylonia.) And Professor Kings writes:

"The Babylonians divided the day into twelve double hours; and the Greeks took over their
ancient system of time-division along with their knowledge of astronomy and passed it on to us."
(Egypt, Babylon and Palestine, p.18)

Professor Sayce tells us that: "Centuries before Abraham was born (about 2000 B.C.) Babylonia
was full of schools and libraries, of teachers and pupils, and poets and prose writers, and of the
literary works which they had composed." (Monumental Facts, etc.)

Sargon's voyages by sea and conquests on land will be described later in the words of Assyriol-
ogists, who feel forced to accept as history what the inscriptions say about them, although to
those who do not identify Sargon with Cain they naturally seem almost incredible The Cam-
bridge History says:

"It seems impossible to explain away the voyage of Sargon across some part of the Mediterrane-
an, and naturally Cyprus was his first objective." (Vol. I, p.405)

One writer quotes an inscription in which Sargon says: "For forty-five years (the number of years
is admittedly undecipherable) the kingdom I have ruled, and the black heads (or black) race I
have governed. In multitudes of bronze chariots I rode over rugged lands. I governed the upper
countries (Assyria, etc). Three times to the sea I have advanced." (Ragozin's Chaldea, pp.205-207)
The same writer remarks:

( Page 17 )

"He is also stated to have made successful expeditions to Syria and Elam, and that with the
conquered peoples of those countries he peopled Akkad, and built there a magnificent palace and
temple, and that on one occasion he was absent three years when he advanced to the Mediterra-
nean, and ... left there memorials of his deeds, returning home with immense spoils." (The
Worship of the Dead, Colonel Garnier. p.398)

It is evident that no ordinary human being, not even a Charlemagne or an Alfred the Great, could
have evolved, during his lifetime, this great civilization; and so Assyriologists find themselves
bound to attribute its evolution to the inferior race among whom (according to the inscriptions)
Sargon arrived suddenly and over whom he eventually reigned. My own contention is that
nothing short of Cain's arrival in Babylonia, his longevity (Jewish tradition says he lived more
than 700 years), and his super human knowledge can account for the magnitude of the achieve-
ments ascribed to Sargon, and the advanced civilization and culture of Babylonia.

VII. SARGON - KING CAIN

The strongest evidence of the identity of Sargon with Cain comes from the Babylonian inscrip-
tions and will be given later, but solid grounds for holding it are supplied by several authorities
who had no idea of suggesting that identification; a fact which makes their testimony all the more
valuable.

To begin with, the city which, as we read in the fourth chapter of Genesis, was built by Cain in
the "Land of nod," and which he "called after the name of his son Enoch," was probably,
according to Professor Sayce, the Babylonian city Unuk or Erech excavated by him.

"If I am right in identifying Unuk with the Enoch of Genesis, the city built by Kain in
commemoration of his son." (Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p.185)

And

"Erech appears to have been one of the centers of Semitic influence in Babylonia from a very
early period." (Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p. 185)

The Cambridge History says of Sargon: "His career began with the conquest of Erech." (Vol I,
p.404) Reasons for thinking that it began with the building, rather than the conquest, of Erech
are given later. The facts that Erech is called "the old city" and the "place of the settlement" (see
p.72), and that, according to Professor Sayce, the name of "Unuk is found on the oldest bricks"
(**1) help to identify Ereck (or Unuk) with the Enoch built by Cain.

(**1) Hibbert Lectures. Index.

As to the sudden and almost miraculous arrival of civilization and culture in Babylonia,
Professor King writes: "We have found, in short, abundant remains of a bronze culture, but no
traces of preceding ages of development such as meet us on early Egyptian sites." (Egypt,
Babylon and Palestine, p 28)

This, of course, harmonizes with my belief that Cain, protected by some divine talisman, arrived
suddenly in Babylonia, bringing with him the supernatural knowledge acquired by his parents.
One writer, expressing his astonishment at the high grade of civilization and culture which is
known to have existed in Babylonia in the time of Sargon, writes:

"Surely such a people as this could not have sprung into existence as a Deus ex Machina; it must
have had its history- a history which presupposes a development of several centuries more."
(Times History, Vol I, p.356)

( Page 18 )

The expression "Deus ex machina" paraphrased by Dr. Brewer into "an intervention of a god or
some unlikely event," is curiously appropriate in connection with my belief that the Babylonian
civilization was due to the sudden advent of Cain with his marvelous knowledge.

The first Adamites were presumably superhuman in both mind and body, which would account
for the great ages to which they lived. We can easily imagine, therefore, how quickly Cain
(divinely protected by some mysterious mark) would become the leader, teacher and absolute
lord and master of an inferior race. As if in support of this suggestion Professor Sayce writes:

"Slavery was part of the foundation upon which Babylonian society rested." (Babylonia and
Assyria. p.67)

The bronze age of Babylonia, which arrived so suddenly and, from a modern scientific point of
view, so unaccountably, may well be attributed to Cain by those who accept as history the first
chapters of Genesis, from which we infer that the earliest Adamites possessed a full knowledge
of much which was lost sight of for long centuries, and only painfully relearned in later times.
As Dr. Kitto writes:

"'To dress and keep' the Garden of Eden, Adam not only required the necessary implements, but
also the knowledge of operations for insuring future produce, the use of water and the various
trainings of the plants and trees."

Dr. Kitto asks how Adam could have done the work appointed for him without iron instruments:
"Iron cannot be brought into a serviceable state without processes and instruments which it
seems impossible to imagine could have been first possessed except in the way of supernatural
communication. ... To make iron (as is the technical term) requires previous iron... Tubal Cain
most probably lived before the death of Adam; and he acquired fame as 'a hammerer, a universal
workman in brass and iron.' Genesis iv,22)" (Kitto's Cyclopaedia. Adam.)

We gather therefore, that Tubal Cain's ancestor Cain may have taken the knowledge of arts and
crafts into Babylonia. The tempter had told Eve that the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge would
make her and Adam as "gods"; what limit, therefore, can be put to their capabilities? Discoveries
witness to the fact that the culture of Babylonia in Sargon's time was of a very high order, and
that the art of that period excelled all later art. No adequate explanation for this fact can be found
unless we believe that Sargon was Cain, and had inherited the miraculous knowledge of his
parents.

Referring to the perfection of the earliest works of Babylonian art, which he ascribes to the reign
of Sargon, Professor Kittel says that they "lay the axe to the dogma of a continuous and unbroken
line of evolution," and that they far excel any of the later Babylonian art and also that of the early
Greek period. Describing some Babylonian works he says: "The surprising delicacy of execu-
tion, the noble beauty and fidelity to nature by which these representations are characterized,
must excite the rapture of everyone who sees them; they would, in my judgment, do honour to
the atelier of a Begas or a Dondorf... they come down to us from the time of Sargon I and
therefore belong, at the latest, to the fourth, perhaps even to the fifth millennium before Christ.
The material of these figures, as determined by a thorough chemical examination, consists of an
alloy of copper and antimony." (Babylonian Excavations, etc., p.22)

How, the Professor asks, can we account for the existence of this beautiful art in earliest
Babylonia and how can we explain the fact that a "degradation must have taken place - a species
of intellectual impoverishment - a retrograde movement, and a falling off from a previous higher
stage of culture." (P.23)

In my opinion, this beautiful and realistic art was introduced by Cain, and the question of its
degradation will be discussed later. Unfortunately, the British Museum possesses no example (so

( Page 19 )

far as I know) of the true art described by Professor Kittel - all that we find there is in the usual
hieratic mock-archaic style.

VIII. SARGON'S NAME SYNONYMOUS WITH KING CAIN

Another indication of the identity of Cain with the Babylonian Sargon is that the name variously
rendered Sargon, Sargoni, Sarrukinu, Shargani, etc., may reasonably be taken as synonymous
with "King Cain," (**1) the first syllable Sar or Shar meaning ruler or King in Babylonia (**2)
and obviously the origin of Shah, Czar, Sahib, Sire, Sir, etc., while the second syllable gon, gani,
gina or kinu, is very like Cain. George Smith writes:

"Several of the other names of antediluvian patriarchs correspond with Babylonian words and
roots, such as Cain with gina and kinu."(*) (Chaldean Genesis P.295. Early edition.)

(**1) Times History, Vol I, p.373. "Shar-kishati means king of the world"
(**2) Altaic Hieroglyphics, p.59. Conder.
(*) According to Professor Waddell, the English language is based upon Baby-
lonian. (Phoenician Origin of the Britons. 1926)

IX. SARGON'S DATE

We also, it seems, have the right to believe that Sargon's date, circa 3,800 B.C. agrees with
Cain's. Accepting Archbishop Usher's reckoning, which has never been discredited, Adam was
created about the year 4,004 B.C. and he is said to have lived 930 years. Cain may have been
born soon after 4,004 B.C. and may, like Adam's other descendants before the Flood, have lived
many hundreds of years (according to Jewish tradition he lived 730 years (**1). That Sargon
lived long is indicated by the tales of his marvellous exploits and travels. It seems necessary
indeed to picture the Babylonian king as endowed with longevity; and this would account for
"the enormous gaps" in Babylonian history which Assyriologists fill up with admittedly conjec-
tural kings and even dynasties.

The great ages of the Biblical patriarchs are sometimes treated as fabulous, but the words in the
sixth chapter of Genesis -"Yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years" -seem to imply
that human life was to be curtailed, and while there is no evidence that men did not live to the
great ages mentioned in the Bible, the whole weight of tradition tends to show that they did.

The gods and demi-gods of the Egyptians were said by the priests to have lived many hundreds
of years; and to adopt Professor Kittel's line of argument, would they have imagined that
longevity if it had never existed? Although the Jews are known to have disputed as to whether it
was common to all men to live to a great age (**2) in those times, they never questioned the
longevity of the patriarchs.

Josephus (38 A.D.) gives a list of ancient authorities who held that "the ancients" lived nearly a
thousand years, (**1) and suggests a commonsense reason for those long lives, saying:

"And besides, God afforded them a longer time of life on account of their virtue, and the good
use they made of it in astronomical and geometrical discoveries, which would not have afforded
the time of foretelling the period of the stars unless they had lived 600 years; for the Great Year
is completed in that interval."

(**1) Biblical Antiquities of Philo, p.78. Trans. by M.R. James L.D.1917
(**2) Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Longevity.

In answer to an enquiry at the British Museum the Secretary wrote (quoting Mr. A. C. D.
Crommelin of the Astronomer Royals staff at Greenwich): "It appears that the 600 year period

( Page 20 )

alluded to by Josephus consists of two of the most satisfactory cycles, that is 300 years, for the
calculation of total eclipses. How the ancient astronomers became aware of these cycles seems
to be unknown." This ancient knowledge can therefore only be accounted for in the way that
Josephus suggests or as direct revelation.

Another reason for the longevity of the patriarchs is suggested by a writer who points out that
Adam lived with Methuselah for about 233 years, that Methuselah died in the year of the Deluge,
and that, therefore, "there was only one person needed - the godly Methuselah - to transmit the
Sacred Hebrew Records from Adam, the First Father of Mankind, to Noah the Second Father of
Mankind. And thus is illustrated one purpose for which a few godly lives were so prodigiously
prolonged before the Deluge." (The Origins of the Bible. Rev. A.B. Grimaldi.)

The Chinese, too, have accounts of primeval longevity in their records. One writer says: "It is a
curious circumstance that the Emperor Ho-ang-ti who, by the chronology of China, must have
been contemporary with the patriarch Reu (Abraham's great-great grandfather), when the life of
man was shortened to about three hundred years, proposed an enquiry in a medical book of
which he was the author, whence it happened that the lives of their forefathers were so long
compared with the lives of the then present generation." (Prefaet. ad Sin. Chron. Couplet, p.5)

(**1) Josephus. Antiquities. Book I. Chap 3. Part 9

Finally, a Babylonian list of kings has lately been found in which the reigns of the kings are
almost exactly the same length as the lives of Adam and his descendants. Adam, for example,
lived 930 years (Genesis V), while the first king in the list is said to have reigned 900 years. Seth
lived 912 years, while King Zugagib lived 940 years. Enos lived 905 years, while Etana reigned
635 years, and the eighth king is said to have reigned 1,200 years, thus outdoing Methuselah,
who only lived 969 years. (**1)

What explanation can there be for the remarkable resemblance between the duration of the reigns
of the Babylonian kings and that of the lives of the Bible patriarchs, unless it be that one list was
copied from the other, or, still more likely, that they are independent records of the same
personages. My own conviction is that the so-called "dynastic list" is simply a disguised
reference to the ages of the earliest Biblical characters - that the different names given to these
kings were invented by the priests and that there are no grounds for concluding, as some writers
have done, that this list of Babylonian kings is older than the Bible records.

One reason for this opinion is that in this list the fifth king (Etana) is said to have been translated
to Heaven, which seems like an echo of the Bible story of Enoch; and another is that the twelfth
king Enmerkar is said to have built the city of Erech "with the people of Erech" (**2) which, if
Professor Sayce is right in identifying Erech with Enoch, is an obvious allusion to Cain's
building of that city.(**3) Professor King saw a connection between Cain and Enmerkar,
although he does not identify them, for he writes:

"Cain's city-building, for example, may pair with that of Enmerkar." (Legends of Babylon, p.38)

(**1) Legends of Babylonia, p.24. L. King
(**2) Legends of Babylon, Egypt, etc., p.35. L. King
(**3) See pg 27

Believing that Cain (i.e. Sargon) built Erech, I naturally accept Colonel Conder's opinion that
Sargon was the first king of Erech, (**1) and reject Dr. Hall's opinion that Sargon conquered a
former king of Erech (**2) called Lugal-Zaggisi. Colonel Conder thinks that Lugal-Zaggisi
meant "the Great Lord" (or king) Sargina" and that both names were applied to Sargon, while
Professor King shows how the same achievements are ascribed in the inscriptions to Sargon and

( Page 21 )

Lugal-Zaggisi and evidently suspected the accuracy of the accounts of the latter's exploits, on
one page he wrote:

"It is true that Shar-gani-sharri of Akkad, at a rather later period, did succeed in establishing an
empire of this extent, but there are difficulties in the way of crediting Lugal- Zaggisi's with a like
achievement." (Sumer and Akkad, p.198)

Writing several years later than Dr. Hall, who takes Shar-gani-sharri and Sargon to be two
different kings, (**3) Professor King gives reasons for the conclusion that they are the same
person. (**4) This confusion arises (I claim) from the fact that the Babylonians wilfully twisted
and distorted the history recorded in the Book of Genesis, and more evidence of this will be
given later.

The importance of this "king-list" from my point of view is that it shows that the longevity of the
Bible patriarchs was known of in Babylonia, which helps to verify the statements in Genesis, and
may persuade the skeptical to accept the probability that Cain was alive in the year 3800 B.C.,
the date ascribed to Sargon, and for centuries after. Considering that no Egyptian king can be
dated with any certainty pervious to the Ptolemaic period (about 500 B.C.) it is a striking fact
and, to my mind, providential, that this very early date should have been established. Professor
Sayce describes how, against his previous judgments, he was forced to accept the evidence that
Sargon of Akkad lived as early as the fourth millennium before Christ, and says how that fact
"shook to its very foundations" his previous theories. He tells how "the last king of Babylonia,
Nabonidas, had antiquarian tastes, and busied himself not only with the restoration of the old
temples of his country, but also with the disinterment of the memorial cylinders which their
builders and restorers had buried beneath their foundations. It was known that the great temple
of the Sun-god at Sippara, where the mounds of Abu Habba now mark its remains, had originally
been erected by Naram-Sin the son of Sargon, and attempts had been already made to find the
records which, it was assumed, he had entombed under its angles. With true antiquarian zeal,
Nabonidas continued the search... until... he had lighted upon 'the foundation-stone' of Naram-
Sin himself. This 'foundation-- stone' he tells us had been seen by none of his predecessors for
3200 years. In the opinion, accordingly, of Nabonidas, a king who was curious about the past
history of his country, and whose royal position gave him the best possible opportunities for
learning all that could be known about it, Naram-Sin and his father Sargon I lived 3200 years
before his own time, or 3750 B.C." (Hibbert Lectures, 1887. p.21)

The American excavator, H.V. Hilprecht, writes:

"Nabonidas, the last Chaldean ruler of Babylon, succeeded in bringing to light the foundation
stone of Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon of Agade, which for 3000 years no previous king had
seen, conveying to us by this statement the startling news that this great ancient monarch lived
about 3790 B.C., a date fully corroborated by my own excavations at Nuffar." (Excavations in
Assyria and Babylon, p. 273)

(**1) The First Bible pp 217-218
(**2) The Ancient History of the Near East p. 185
(**3) The First Bible pp 217-218
The Ancient History of the Near East p 186
(**4) Sumer and Akkad, p 221 And see Appendix D.

X. SARGON'S MONUMENTAL DATE DISPUTED

Since these views were expressed Assyriologists have seen fit to throw doubt upon this early
date, and the news which startled Professor Hilprecht is discarded by them. Prof. King explains
that to accept this date as accurate entails the leaving of "enormous gaps in Babylonian history
which the invention of kings and even dynasties has not succeeded in filling up." (**1) These

( Page 22 )

gaps can, I contend, be accounted for by my theory that Cain reigned in Babylonia many
hundreds of years and was probably followed by an equally long-lived son, since Naram-Sin
seems to have been almost as famous as his father and to have made even more extensive
conquests.

Other Assyriologists, in endeavoring to compile a consecutive history of ancient Babylonia,
choose to discard Sargon's date, 3800 B.C. In the latest edition of the British Museum Catalogue
we find (pp 4-5):

"It is now generally thought that the scribes of Nabonidas either made a mistake in copying or
that there was a mistake in the archetype; in fact, that they wrote 3200 instead of 2200. We may
assume then that Sargon reigned between 3000 B.C. and 2700 B.C. (**2)

(**1) Sumer and Akkad, p.61. L. King It seems noteworthy that Professor King,
who, in this work, published elaborate lists of Samarian kings, should thus confess
their conjectural character.
(**2) The reluctance to accept Sargon's early date leads to some confusion. Profes-
sor Waddell, for instance, in a footnote, says "the founder of the 1st Sumer dynasty
about 3100 B.C. who uses the swastika and figures himself as a Fire priest, often
records his presentation of a 'Font-pan' or 'Font of the Abyss'... to different temples
which he erected... Sargon I, about 2800 B.C., as high-priest who uses the swastika,
describes himself as 'water-libator' and devotee Nu-iz-sir (= Nazir) of God."
(Phoenician Origin of Britons, p.273. 1925) How much simpler to regard both kings
as one.

XI. AN IMPROBABLE THEORY

Before bringing forward evidence from the Babylonian inscriptions in further support of my
theory of the identity of Cain with Sargon, the site (to continue my former metaphor) must be
cleared to facilitate the building up of that theory. With the readers help (for his whole attention
is wanted here) the most formidable obstruction must now be dealt with, for we come up against
the theory held by most Assyriologists that the ancient civilization of Babylonia, which I ascribe
to Cain, was evolved by an inferior race called the Sumerians or Akkadians who, according to
Professor Sayce, were probably blacks. (**1) From their study of the monuments Assyriologists
infer that Babylonia was first inhabited by two races, one being an inferior type, and the other a
superior white race, which they think eventually ruled over the inferior one. But, and this is the
weak part of the story, they hold that it was the inferior race which evolved the astonishing
civilization and culture of ancient Babylonia, the art of cuneiform writing and the mythology, all
of which was absorbed (they tell us) by the conquering race which ruled the land as early as the
third millennium before Christ, and who became the powerful Babylonians mentioned in the
Bible. It is therefore to this inferior race that the invention of the mythological account of the
Creation is ascribed and it is their gods which are suppose to be the models from which were
"borrowed" the characters described in the first chapters of Genesis. Even Assyriologists who
accept this story see its weakness.

(**1) See footnote p.17

Professor Sayce says: "This is so startling, so contrary to preconceived ideas, that it was long
refused credence by the leading orientalists of Europe... even to-day there are scholars, and
notably one, who has himself achieved success in Assyrian research, who still refuse to believe
that Babylonian civilization was originally the Creation of a race which has long since fallen into
the rear rank of human progress." (Ancient History) Professor King who also held this theory,
admits that the monuments testify to the presence of both races in Babylonia at the beginning of
history; he writes:

( Page 23 )

"It would thus appear that at the earliest period of which remains or records have been recovered,
Semites and Sumerians were both settled in Babylonia." (Sumer and Akkad p.53) in which case
it is surely to the superior race that we should look for the originators of the civilization and
culture. Naturally, since this authority regards the inferior race as the pioneers of the Babylonian
civilization, he believes that the oldest gods first belonged to that race and were taken over in
later times by the superior race who conquered them. While holding this opinion himself he
frankly admits that at least one authority argued against it, because in the monumental drawings
those gods are represented as members of the superior race, and says:

"Man forms his god in his own image, and it is surprising that the gods of the Sumerians should
not have been of the Sumerian type." (Sumer and Akkad, p.49) (See illustrations facing p.149)
So shadowy are the grounds upon which are based this improbable theory, that some Assyriolo-
gists doubt the existence in Babylonia of any other race than the so-called Semitic race to which
Sargon belonged.

Sir James Frazier writes: "Assyriologists are by no means agreed as to the occupation of
Babylonia by an alien race before the arrival of the Semites."

It suits my theory, however, to believe that a race different from the so called different from the
so called Semitic race to which Sargon belonged live first in Babylonia. I regard those people
as the pre-Adamites over whom Cain ruled and the fact that all accounts of them are of the
slightest description seems to me natural, for if they were an inferior race, as we should infer
from the Bible and the monuments, they would have left no records of any kind. Any names or
actions attributed to them were, therefore, probably invented by the later historians of
Babylonia. As one writer says:

"We are constrained to view the Sumerians solely in the light of their successors." (Times History
Vol I, p.461)

XII. THE SUMERIAN PROBLEM

It seems that the reasons why the inferior race is supposed by Assyriologists to have evolved the
ancient civilization of Babylonia are first, that Sargon in whose reign that civilization existed,
could not in their opinion have originated it, since its evolution must have required many
centuries; a very natural conclusion since they do not identify Sargon with Cain; and secondly,
that most of the inscriptions upon the monuments are written in a mixed dialect, very different
from the Babylonian language talked by Sargon and later Babylonians. Because of the primitive
style of the larger part of the inscriptions most scholars believe that their language was that of
the inferior race who, they therefore claim, originated the civilization of Babylonia, as well as
the cuneiform writing.

Since this opinion is irreconcilable with my own that it was Sargon (King Cain) who introduced
that civilization and culture, I must, before further attempting to build up my theory, try to put
before the reader as concisely as possible both sides of the question. Fortunately, a school of
Assyriologists exists whose views unintentionally support my own. That school is called
"Halevyan" after the French Assyriologist Joseph Halevy, while the opposing school is known
as "Sumerian." This question is known as "The Sumerian Problem," and in studying it, it must
be remembered that the word "Sumerian" is applied to the people whom I regard as pre-
Adamites, and the word "Semite" to Sargon and his race. This problem is said to be "of vital
importance" to those who wish to know more about the history of Ancient Babylonia. A
supporter of the "Sumerian School" writes:

"After a long dispute carried on chiefly by philologists it is now generally conceded that the
earliest civilization of Southern Babylonia was due to a non Semitic people, the Sumerians. To
this people it would seem, must be ascribed the honour of developing the chief features of

( Page 24 )

Mesopotamian civilization, including the invention of the cuneiform system of writing. (Ency.
Brit., Ed.XI. Sumer) The Halevyan school, on the other hand, considers that the language of the
inscriptions is merely an invention of the Babylonian priests of later times and represents
"nothing more than a priestly system of cryptography based of course upon the common
phonetic speech." (Times History, Vol I p.310) In Professor Halevy's opinion the earliest
characters from which grew the cuneiform writing testify to the Semitic origin of that writing
and completely "refute the hypothesis of early decipherers that there existed on Babylonian soil
prior to the Semites an alien race called the Sumerians, or Akkadians, from whom came the
cuneiform characters as well as the entire Semitic civilization of Babylonia." (Times History,
Vol I p.310) This opinion has been supported by Professor Delitzsch, and other German critics,
and agrees with Professor Hugo Winckler's statement that the Babylonian inscriptions exhibit
the same characteristics as the monk's Latin and as the Macaronic compositions, though he says:
"in the latter case the linguistic hybridations are often humorously meant and this mongrel
Sumerian is always serious." (History of Babylonia and Assyria, p.14) To give some idea of
what, in the above writer's opinion, the Sumerian language is like, I quote the

Century

Dictionary, which describes the Macaronic writing as "characterized by the use of many strange,
distorted, or foreign words or forms, with little regard to syntax, yet with sufficient analogy to
common words and constructions to be or seem intelligible." The "philological dispute" is
therefore this: the Sumerian school claims that an inferior race called Sumerians invented the
writing, etc., of Babylonia, which the superior race called Semites afterwards absorbed; on the
other hand, the Halevyan school denies the existence of the inferior race altogether, and claims
for the superior race the invention of the Babylonian writing, civilization and culture. A means
of reconciling these opposing views is offered by my theory that the inferior language is that of
the pre-Adamites, whose existence we infer from the Bible, that the superior language was that
of Cain, and that the two languages were mixed up by the scribes of later days into a kind of
secret dialect.

XIII. PROFESSOR LEONARD KING'S ULTIMATUM QUESTIONED

Because of the apparently primitive language in which most of the inscriptions are written,
certain versions of the Creation, Fall of Man, and the Deluge, are believed by the Sumerian
school to date back to the time before Sargon of Akkad, to be the work of the "Sumerians," and
to be the models on which both the Bible and Babylonian stories were founded. As we have
seen, this opinion has been disputed; but in 1916 Professor King announced his conviction that
the controversy must be settled in favor of the Sumerian school, since quantities of tablets had
been found at Nippur in Babylonia, which were almost entirely written in the "Sumerian"
language. This hardly justifies his conclusion, however, if as another Assyriologist writes:

"Nothing found at Nippur can be dated with any certainty earlier than 2500 B.C." (Religion of
Babylonia and Assyria, p.595. M. Jastrow.) For in that case the "Semites" who are known to
have been in Babylonia before that date may have already invented the "priestly cryptogram"
which Professor Halevy believes the "Sumerian language" to be. Professor King seems to
discount his own conclusion and to support that of Professor Halevy by saying that hundreds of
the Babylonian tablets are inscribed with "grammatical compilations", and lists of Sumerian
words accompanied by their translations into the Babylonian speech, which, he says, shows how
carefully the primitive Sumerian language was studied by the Babylonian priests. He writes:
"The late Sir Henry Rawlinson rightly concludes that these strange texts were written in the
language of some race who had inhabited Babylonia before the Semites, while he explains the
lists of words as early dictionaries compiled by the Assyrian scribes to help them in their studies
of this ancient tongue." (Sumer and Akkad, p.4)

According to Professor Jastrow:

"Many of these school texts were written in a Sumerian version, though emanating from priests
who spoke Babylonian." (Religion of Babylon and Assyria. p.279) It seems evident that the

( Page 25 )

scribes, who thus studied the primitive language with apparently a view to resuscitate it, could
put as much or as little of it into their inscriptions as they chose, and that these comparatively
newly discovered inscriptions may have been their latest productions instead of the work of the
ancient inhabitants of Babylonia. Professor Sayce, although sharing in the opinion that the Bible
and Babylonian stories were originated by the "Sumerians", admits that those stories have come
down to us through generations of Babylonian priests. He writes in reference to the Sumerian
story of the Creation:

"Its antiquity is shown by the fact that it is written in the ancient language of Sumer... but it is
evident that the old poem has been revised and re-edited by the priesthood of Babylon... the
Creator god Ea has been supplanted by Merodach... it is possible that even in its alterations at
the hands of theologians of Babylon the old cosmological poem of Eridu has been modifies in
accordance with the requirements of a theology which resulted from a fusion of Sumerian and
Semitic ideas." (Religion of the Babylonians. p. 379) It seems strange that the Professor, who
sees the artificiality of this story, can feel convinced of its "Sumerian" authorship. To me it is
only one of the corrupt versions of the Creation story handed down from the time of Cain by the
Babylonian priests. It is indeed a recommendation for the Halevyan theory, and incidentally for
mine as well, that if either of them is adopted, the supposed Sumerian inscriptions may be
regarded as nothing more than the nonsensical inventions of the pagan priests, and probably part
of a scheme to mystify posterity.

XIV. SUGGESTED RECONCILIATION OF THE TWO THEORIES

If only, as before suggested, the Sumerian school would accept the Halevyan theory that the
language of the inscriptions is a concoction of the priests; and if in return the Halevyans would
accept the theory of the Sumerian school that the inferior dialect is a real language, as I am
inclined to regard it, their views could be reconciled and would fit in with my own that the
superior language was that of Cain (**1) and the inferior that of the pre-Adamites. Such a
mutual concession would not be incompatible with the science of philology. After carefully
discussing both sides of the question, and American professor writes:

"The Semitic priests and scribes played with and on the Sumerian idioms, and turned what was
originally an agglutinative language into what has almost justified Halevy and his followers in
calling Sumerian a cryptogram." (J. Dyneley Prince, Prof. of Semitic Languages, Columbia
University. Ency. Brit., Ed. II. Sumer.) His further remarks show that he would willingly agree
with the Halevyan school that the language of the inscriptions was an arrangement of the priests
for purposes of mystification, were it not for the fact that he cannot satisfy himself that the
inferior part of the language once spoken in Babylonia. Since he cannot satisfy himself on this
point he practically gives up the problem. It can hardly be denied that if my theory about Cain
and the pre-Adamites is accepted it solves the "Sumerian problem," and since "the evidence of
a theory increases with number of facts which it explains" there is much to be said in its favor.
For my purpose it matters little whether the inferior language of the Babylonian inscriptions
belonged to the pre-Adamites or was invented by the priests. That question I leave to philolo-
gists. What does matter to me is the discovery made by both schools that the writers of the
inscriptions chose to mix that inferior language with their own, for by doing this they make their
writings almost unintelligible, thus supporting my theory that they willfully obscured their
meaning.

(**1) As we have seen, the language of Sargon resembled Hebrew. See p.22

XV. THE GREAT CONSPIRACY

Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations
have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad. Jer. xl, 7.

( Page 26 )

Having done my best to satisfy the reader that there is no proof that the Babylonian civilization
and culture were evolved by an inferior race, the ground is cleared for the further building up of
my theory that Cain was identical with Sargon, and that to his superhuman knowledge of good
and evil must be attributed the ancient glory of Babylonia as well as her enduring shame.
Discarding the teaching of the Sumerian school that the inferior race of Babylonia gradually
evolved (presumably from sticks and stones) the earliest gods and goddesses, it seems natural to
regard Cain as their inventor; for as Professor Kittel argues, the idea of false deities can only have
occurred in the first instance to one who possessed the knowledge of God. And since, as I show
later, the oldest gods Anu and Ishtar represent Adam and Eve, the fact that they were first
worshipped in Erech or Unuk (the city probably built by Cain) (**1) points to this conclusion.
"There are some reasons for believing that the oldest seat, and possibly the original seat, of the
Anu cult was in Erech as it is there where the Ishtar cult... took its rise." (Ency. Brit., Ed. XI
p.113) as does also Professor Sayce's statement that an astro-theology grew up in the court of
Sargon in which the heavens, etc., were divided between Anu, Ea and Bel, whom I regard as
representing Adam, Eve and the Devil. (**2) If Cain was Sargon, St. John's statement that he
was "of that wicked one" (**3) finds striking support in the Babylonian inscriptions in which
Sargon is called the son of the Devil, as in the following:

."The divine Sargani, the illustrious king, a son of Bel the just, the king of Agade and of the
children of Bel." (The First Bible, Colonel Conder, p.220) Bel, the "Lord of the underworld," is
called alternately in the inscriptions Mul-lil and En-lil, and Sargon's allegiance to the Devil under
the latter name is alluded to in an inscription upon a votive vase of what calcite stalagmite as
follows:

"To the god Enlil the king of all lands, king Sargina king of Erech, the world-king, the prince of
God, the mighty man, the obedient son of the god Ea... the great ruler or patesi (**4) of the divine
king of all lands, listening obediently to the god Enlil... having become sole chief of Erech,
invoking Nina the far-famed lady of Erech; through the mighty aid of his god, in the day that the
god Enlil made to king Sargina the grant of royalty on earth, allotted to him in sight of the world,
the hosts of the lands being obedient from east to west, he has added every land by making
conquest... He has made the high place of Erech a shrine of Ea?" (The First Bible. Colonel
Conder, p.219) Evidence will be given later that the names Nina and Ea both represent Eve (or
Ishtar). Colonel Conder gives another inscription purporting to be of Sargon:

"King Sargina, king of Erech, having overthrown the world... has erected a temple this day for
the god Enlil, king of all lands, to worship Enlil, king of all lands, all his life long... Let the
world's eye henceforth behold the favored place, prosperity enduring for many years." (P.218)

(**1) See above, p.27
(**2) Hibbert Lectures 1887, pp.400-402.
(**3) St. John iii, 12
(**4) "Priest-king (patesi)." Cambridge History, Vol. I p.148.

If these words are not meant as a tribute to the "prince of this world" through the medium of King
Cain, it is difficult to imagine any meaning in them. Further reasons will be given for believing
that Cain was the human originator of idolatry, but its instigator must have been "the Prince of
Darkness." What greater insult than the worship of false gods could have been offered to the
Creator by the disgraced Spirit and the outcast man? As Robert Browning wrote:

"Note that the climax and the crown of things Invariably is - the Devil appears himself - Armed,
accoutered, horns and hoofs and tail." And sure enough those baneful signs are inseparable from
the Babylonian religion; for in their drawings all their gods and heroes are represented with horns
or hoofs or tail. (**1) (See illustration.) Thus, I dare to think, sprang up a great conspiracy
cunningly devised to catch the souls of men. Mankind had already forfeited the immortality of
the body, but their souls were still free to soar. Once caught, their souls were to be drugged and

( Page 27 )

maddened with the wine of the Golden Cup until soul, as well as body, had forfeited eternal life.
The New Testament gives a lurid picture of Cain's followers; and the monuments amply testify
that the Babylonian priests who were, if my theory holds good, the first of those followers,
deserved the denunciations hurled at them by the Apostle Jude:

"Woe unto them. For they have gone in the way of Cain,... these are the spots in your feasts of
charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear; clouds they are without
water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked
up by the roots; raging waves of the sea foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom
is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever."

(**1) The Moon-god Sin, confused in inscriptions with En-lil or Bel, is called
"The Up lifter of Horns." (Hibbert Lectures. 1887, p.128)

XVI. THE BABYLONIAN PRIESTS

One fact, little commented upon in modern works on ancient Babylonia and Egypt, is the
tremendous power possessed by the priests who were responsible for the inscriptions. Yet to my
mind, unless we appreciate the full significance of this fact, we cannot hope to unravel the
intricacies of the historical material left behind by them. It is not always realized that the
literature and art of those countries were entirely in their hands for at least 2,000 years before
Christ; and that they could therefore hand down as much or as little of their history as they chose.
Speaking of the Babylonian inscriptions, Professor Maurice Jastrow says:

"It was throughout the temple schools and for the temple schools that the literature which is
wholly religious in its character, or touches religion at some point was produced... the functions
of the priests were differentiated, and assigned to several classes... diviners, exercisers, astrolo-
gists, physicians, scribes and judges of the court to name only the more important... the power
thus lodged in the priests of Babylonia and Assyria was enormous. They virtually held in their
hands the life and death of the people." (Religion of Babylonia and Assyria. M. Jastrow,
Professor of Semitic Languages, University of Pennsylvania.) These all-powerful priests were
the hereditary conspirators, the custodians of the Golden Cup - the legacy of Cain. They, as we
have seen, are known to have possessed from the time of Sargon a language resembling Hebrew,
and the art of cuneiform writing, and could therefore have left behind them a clear and detailed
history; instead of which, they left confused and almost undecipherable inscriptions written in a
mongrel dialect. What but a desire to mystify could have prompted such apparent stupidity, or
the following equally irrational custom adopted by them and described by Professor Jastrow:

"The inscriptions upon the bricks found in the library of Assurbani-pal were copies of very much
older writings collected from all parts of Babylonia belonging to a great literary movement
which took place in the time of Khammurabi (circa 2000 B.C.) when the prevailing myths,
religion and science of the day were embodied in numerous works; and the later Assyrians and
Babylonians were content to copy these writings instead of making new work for themselves."
(Religion of Babylonia and Assyria.) What but my theory can explain why the scribes of
Assurbani-pal's reign devoted their time and energy to copying earlier works referring to past
events and characters? If, as I contend, Cain armed with superhuman knowledge and power,
came into Babylonia bringing with him the marvellous story of the Creation of the world and the
Garden of Eden, how tame by comparison must the later history of Babylonia have seemed, and
how insignificant its later monarchs. No wonder the old times were perpetually harped upon in
inscriptions in which are veiled allusions to Adam and Eve - the Fall of Adam - Eve's sorrow for
Abel and her anger against Cain - the coming of Cain to Babylonia and his alliance with the
Devil. These illusions are cloaked in the form of mythology which originated (as I hope to show)
in Cain's travesty of the truth in transferring the Divine attributes of the Creator to three false
gods, whom he called Anu and Ea, after his parents, and Bel, after the Devil. The monotheistic
inscriptions to be produced later, prove that the knowledge of the One God had reached

( Page 28 )

Babylonia at the beginning of history, and St. Paul says that, although "from the Creation of the
World," God had made Himself known to men, they had corrupted that knowledge into idolatry:
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible
God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and
creeping things." (Romans I, 22-23) The evil character of the priests is betrayed by their
inscriptions which show that they practiced cannibalism. Professor Sayce says: "Human flesh
was consumed in Babylonia in the earliest times in honour of the gods," and "human sacrifices
were part of their religion." (**1) Although, as one writer says, "the conception of the soul had
been arrived at in the age of Sargon of Akkad," (**2) the doctrines taught by the priests were in
the last degree materialistic. The soul of man was said to be in the liver, and every sheep's liver
contained (as it was taught) the liver of a god, and was an instrument of divination, etc.
Hundreds of brick models of livers have been dug up, also directions showing the meaning
attached to different diseases and deformities of the liver. The inscriptions, which prove that the
knowledge of One God and His Laws existed in Babylonia in the earliest times, (**3) make it
evident that the degrading teaching of the priests was an outcome of evil and not of ignorance.
Just as the later Babylonian art shows, as Professor Kittel remarks, "a falling off" from that of
Sargon's time (suggesting a willful degradation) and just as the use of a "mongrel dialect" by the
priests in place of their actual language shows a wilful degradation of literature as well as a desire
to mystify, so the substitution of innumerable gods for the One God can only indicate a wilful
suppression of the truth. The strongest evidence of the priests' duplicity is met with in examining
the Babylonian myths, and three of these may be mentioned here. They cannot have escaped the
notice of the first Higher Critics, and therefore seem to justify Professor Kittel's statement that
they did not
PG 59

necessarily believe that the Bible stories were borrowed from Babylonian myths, but invented
that theory to popularise Assyriology. George Smith says that: "the dark race is called Admi or
Adami which is exactly the name given to the first man in Genesis," and "it appears from the
fragments that it was the race of Adam or the black race which was believed to have fallen."
(Chaldean Genesis, p.9) If, as some Higher Critics hold, an Israelitish scribe invented a history
of his race with the help of Babylonian literature, would he have chosen the name of the black
race in Babylonia for his primeval ancestor? Is it not more likely that the Babylonian priests
applied the name of the first white man to the black race as part of their conspiracy of lies - a
very masterpiece of mockery. It seems obvious too that the Babylonians were intentionally
misrepresenting the sequence of the events in the story of the Creation, when they said that the
Moon was created before the Sun. (**4) And is it possible to imagine that the Bible story of Eve's
creation was inspired by the Babylonian one of the first woman's creation by "seven evil spirits"
of whom it is said that "The woman from the loins of the man they bring forth." (Sayce, Hibbert
Lectures,p.395) Could anyone honestly believe that the Genesis story of Eve's temptation and
loss of immortality was inspired by the Babylonian story of the serpent that deprived a hero of a
plant capable of rejuvenating and keeping men alive. (**5) the resemblance between the two
stories seems to me to show that one is the parody of events described in the other, for it is
obvious that they both had the same origin. Professor Pinches, discussing the Babylonian
literature says: "There is hardly any doubt that a desire existed to make things as difficult as
possible..." (Ancient Egypt, Part 3, 1923. Editor, Prof. Sir Flinders Petrie)

(**1) Hibbert Lectures, 1887. p.83. Appendix E
(**2) Religion of Babylonia and Assyria. Prof. Jastrow
(**3) These monotheistic inscriptions are quoted later.
(**4) In the Babylonian Creation story.
(**5) Ency. Brit, Ed II. Serpent - worship

Another scholar comments upon the universal system of obscurantism practiced by pagan
priests:

( Page 29 )

"This dominant priesthood, whose domain was knowledge, holding the keys of treasured
learning, opened the lock with chary hands, and veiled plain speech in fantastic allegory. In such
allegory Egyptian priests spoke to Greek travelers who came to them as Dervish pilgrims or
Wanderlande students. It was this sibylline knowledge that an Aeschylus, an Ovid, or a Virgil,
master of wizards, here and there revealed. It is this dragon-guarded treasure of secret wisdom
that we may yet seek to interpret from graven emblem, from symbolic monuments, from the
orientation of temple walls, from the difficult interpretations of non-Hellenic names of hero and
heroine; god and lunar goddess, of mysterious monster and fabled bird, of celestial river and
starry hill; names that were first written in the ancient language of a people wiser and more
ancient than the Greeks." (Professor Darcy W. Thompson, Transactions of the Royal Society of
Edinburgh, Vol. I Part I, No. 3) The "treasured learning" veiled in fantastic allegory was, I shall
try to show, the knowledge of God and of the events and characters recorded in the first chapters
of genesis, all of which became less and less recognizable as the centuries rolled on. In case the
discovery that the blacks of Babylonia were called Adami should by any possibility be thought
to support Sir James Frazer's theory that the story of Adam originated among the African tribes
and that Adam was a black man, it would be well to call attention to a drawing in which Adam
and Eve, though far from beautiful, are undoubtedly represented as white people. (See illustra-
tion facing.)

George Smith writes: "One striking and important specimen of early type in the British Museum
collection has two figures sitting one on each side of a tree, holding out their hands to the fruit,
while at the back of one is stretched a serpent. We know well that in the earliest sculptures none
of these figures were chance devices, but all represented events or supposed events and figures
in their legends; thus it is evident that a form of the story of the Fall similar to that of Genesis
was known in early times in Babylonia." (Chaldean Genesis, p.55)

XVII. THE ORIGIN OF MYTHOLOGY

In dealing with mythology - "that fantastic allegory" - another difficulty confronts me. My views
upon this subject differ from those held by many well-known and influential writers, and
therefore, before showing that the Babylonian mythology provides the surest signs of the identity
of Cain with Sargon, I must examine those opposing views. So admired and renowned are their
exponents that only my conviction of their fallacies lends me courage to oppose them. It is, as
Max Muller says:

"the silly, savage and senseless element that makes mythology the puzzle which men have so
long found it." (Ency. Brit. Ed. II Mythology.) and this element is just what one would expect to
find in it, if it is nothing more or less than the result of Cain's determination to counteract the
worship of God so faithfully preserved by the other branch of Adam's race. From the days of
ancient Greece learned men have puzzled over the unnatural features of mythology and the
mystery of its origin, and at least five different explanations had been offered for it before the
Birth of Christ. They were the physical explanation of Theagenes, the religious or theosophical
explanation of Porphyry, the explanation of the myths as allegories; Aristotle's opinion that the
myths were the inventions of legislators "to persuade the many and to be used in support of the
law," and finally the view propounded by Euemerus (316 B.C.), according to whom the myths
were history in disguise and:

"all gods were once men whose real feats have been decorated and distorted by later fancy."
(Ency. Brit., Ed. II. Mythology) Needless to say, this is the view with which my theories agree,
and it agrees with St. Paul's words. (**1) Did not the pagans by attributing God-like qualities of
men, change "the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man"? Although the
writer of the following passage pins his own faith to a more modern view he admits that there is
much to be said for the explanation offered by Euemerus; he writes:

( Page 30 )

"This view suited Lactantius, St. Augustine and other early Christian writers very well. hey were
pleased to believe that Euemerus 'by historical research had ascertained that the gods were once
but mortal men.' Precisely the same convent line was taken by Sahagun in is account of Mexican
religious myths. As there can be no doubt that the ghosts of dead men have been worshipped
in many lands, and as the gods of many faiths are tricked out with attributes derived from
Ancestor-worship, the system of Euemerus retains some measure of plausibility. While we need
not believe with Euemerus and with Herbert Spencer that the god of Greece or the god of the
Hottentots was once a man, we cannot deny that the myths of both these gods have passed
through and been coloured by the imaginations of men who practiced the worship of real
ancestors. For example, the Cretans showed the tomb of Zeus, and the Phoenicians (Pausanias
X,5) daily poured blood of victims into the tomb of a hero, obviously by way of feeding this
ghost... very probably portions of the legends of real men have been attracted into the mythical
accounts of gods of another character, and this is the element of truth at the bottom of
Euemerism." (Ency. Brit., Ed. II Mythology.) This authority (Andrew Lang) like other modern
mythologians prefers the latest explanation of mythology, which is that it gradually evolved from
the imagination of primitive man. He writes:

"Our theory is therefore that the savage and senseless element in mythology is, for the most part,
a legacy from the ancestors of the civilized races who were in an intellectual state not higher than
that of Australians, Bushmen, Red Indians, the lower races of South America, Mincopies and
worse than barbaric peoples. As the ancestors of the Greeks... advanced in civilization their
religious thought was shocked and surprised by myths (originally dating from the period of
savagery, and natural in that period) which were preserved down to the time of the Pausanias by
local priesthoods, or were stereotyped in the ancient poems of Hesiod and Homer, or in the
Brahmanas and Vedas of India, or were retained in the popular religion of Egypt." (Ency. Brit.,
Ed. II. Mythology.) If the Greeks had really been shocked by ancient myths we might agree with
this writer in regarding these myths as peculiar to a state of ignorance, but since the Greeks
themselves not only adopted the ancient mythology of Babylonia, (**1) but added to it some
even worse features, it was obviously the outcome not of ignorance, but of evil, powerful enough
to resist the vaunted evolution of civilization. Professor Max Muller says about the Greek
mythologians:

"they would relate of their gods what would make the most savage of Red Indians creep and
shudder ...stories, that is, of the cannibalism of Demeter, of the mutilation of Uranus, the
cannibalism of Cronus, who swallowed his own children, and the like. Among the lowest tribes
of Africa and America we hardly find anything more hideous and revolting." (Ency Brit., Ed. II.
Mythology.) If too, we glace at Roman mythology, which it is now recognized owed its origin
through the Greeks to Babylonia, could any custom be more barbarous than that still carried on
near Rome in Imperial times, namely the constantly recurring murders of the priest-kings of
Nemi, about which Sir James Frazer writes:

(**1) See footnote, p.108

"The strange rule of this priesthood has no parallel in classical antiquity and cannot be explained
from it. To find the explanation we must go further afield... no one will probably deny that such
a custom saviours of barbarous days and, surviving into imperial times, stands out in striking
isolation from the polished society of the day, like a primeval rock rising from a smooth shady
lawn." (Golden Bough) May it not be further back, rather than "further afield" that we must look
for the origin of this custom? Sir James Frazer has searched the world over for its explanation
and has failed to find it, but does not the story of Cain, granted that he was the Babylonian king
Sargon, provide the most reasonable explanation of this ancient custom in which murderers,
masquerading as kings and priests, were honoured? However this may be, the important fact
remains that one of the most barbarous of customs survived at that late period of history in an
outwardly polished society, because beneath the surface lurked the besotting influence of the
Golden Cup of Babylonia. In my opinion, the theory that Cain, inspired by hatred and revenge,

( Page 31 )

invented false gods is manifestly more probable than the theory that a system, which has held
men's imagination throughout the whole history of the world, was devised in the first place by
ignorant savages. If, as Professor Kittel and Max Muller claim, it is psychologically impossible
that the notion of gods can have preceded the knowledge of the One God, where can we look for
the originator of the gods of Ancient Babylonia if not to Cain? And how can we reasonably
account for the existence of so "silly, savage and senseless" a system as mythology, except as
being the corrupted stream of "ancient knowledge revealed by God to man"? Just as "Shadow
owes its birth to light", so mythology owes its existence to the truth, for as everything combines
to show, it is nothing more than its distorted shadow. Like the clinging weed which devastates
a cornfield, mythology has, I hold, obscured the whole of ancient history.

XVIII. EUEMERUS SUPPORTED BY OTHER WRITERS

It will be seen therefore, that the view propounded by Euemerus harmonizes with my own theory
of the system of obscurantism practiced from earliest times by the Babylonian priests; and it can
scarcely be denied that in his time evidence in favour of his theory may have existed of which
nothing is now known. The American Assyriologists Albert Clay (one of the latest writers upon
the subject) says:

"The fact that Euhemerism, as it was developed, was in time completely disregarded, does not
prove that Euhemerus was wrong. As far as I can ascertain, since the excavations at Troy, and
in the light of other discoveries, not a few classical scholars hold that many of the so-called
Greek and Roman gods were heroic personages." (The Origin of Biblical Traditions p.27)
Augustine, the African Bishop (A.D. 354-430) in his book De civita Dei, says: "Alexander the
Great told his mother in a letter that even the higher gods...were men, and the secret was told him
by Leo the high priest of Egyptian sacred things ...Alexander requested his mother to burn the
letter in which he said this." (Worship of the Dead, p.15, Garnier.) The outstanding feature of
mythology is its bewildering variations, its "kaleidoscopic interchange of gods and goddesses,"
as Professor Sayce describes it, which I contend was meant to blind posterity to the fact that
under the baffling verbiage of the priests' writings, historical events and characters were hidden.
For this purpose the names, sexes and relationships of the mythological characters seem to have
been changed in different periods and places; father and son are hopelessly confused, as are also
mother, sister, and wife. Many of the deities have both male and female forms. In Babylonian
mythology, for instance, Anatu the wife or consort of Anu is generally a form of Anu, and she
is also one of the many forms of the goddess called Ishtar. (**1) While the first Babylonian god
Anu evidently represents Adam, the chief god of the Hindus is also Adam, for one of his names
is Adama and his wife is called Iva. One writer points out that Noah is represented in Indian
mythology by the god Menu, whose sons, first called Sama, Chama, and Pra Japeti and later on
Brahma, Siva and Chrisna were unmistakably the representatives of Shem, Ham and Japheth,
because, he says:

"They are described as the children of one who was preserved in an ark with seven companions."
(Origin of Pagan Idolatry, Vol 2, p.102. Faber.) We are thus encouraged by many writers to look
upon the mythological characters as the deified forms of the first men and women, although that
view is not popular with modern scholars.

(**1) Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p.184. Sayce

XIX. THE ROOT OF MYTHOLOGY

The Babylonian gods are the first of which we have any monumental record. In studying them,
therefore, we are as it were, getting down to the root of mythology and analyzing the ingredients
of the Golden Cup of Babylonia, which, down through the ages, has blinded the majority of
mankind to the truth. Having, I hope, convinced the reader of the improbability of the "black
heads" having evolved the civilization of Babylonia, and that on the contrary it was invented by

( Page 32 )

the great Sargon, who, as Professor Kings says, was "the actual founder of his dynasty"; (**1) it
follows that we may also attribute the institution of the oldest known gods to Sargon (namely
Cain), and this furnishes a very reasonable explanation of how the mythological systems of the
world first came into being. Although the connection between those gods and the Bible charac-
ters is admitted by some Assyriologists, they regard the former as the prototype of the latter,
whereas I claim that it was Cain (the "high-priest of Enlil"), and after him generations of priests
who travestied the miraculous story of the Garden of Eden; although, since that story dwarfed
everything in their experience, it is perpetually harped upon in their so-called religious writings.
Professor King, who held that the Babylonian myths were adopted by the Hebrews, says:

"The association of winged guardians with the sacred tree in Babylonian art is at least suggestive
of the cherubims and the tree of life."

(**1) Sumer and Akkad, p.232

And in discussing the resemblances between the Hebrew and Biblical writings he says:

"We come then to the question, at what periods and by what process did the Hebrews become
acquainted with Babylonian ideas?" (Legends of Babylonia, pp 136-141) To that question
Professor King suggests four alternative answers, but arrives at no conclusion. It does not seem
to have occurred to him that the Hebrew and Babylonian stories were (as Professor Kittel
believes) independent versions of the same original, although from every point of view it seems
to be the reasonable solution of the problem. Presumable influenced by opinions such as
Professor King's, some theologians have relinquished their faith in the miraculous character of
the Genesis stories and regard them as inspired by the Babylonian myths. They credit some
unknown Israelitish scribe with the authorship of the Book of Genesis, and attribute the ethical
teaching of that Book to the influence exerted upon the author by the later prophets (circa 700
B.C.). (**1) But is it conceivable that so spiritually minded a writer (under such influence)
should have invented a fictitious story of the origin of his race, adopting two Babylonian gods
as its first parents, or that he took his idea of the Tree of Life from such drawings as the above?
(**2)

(**1) The Doctrine of the Infallible Book p.14. Canon Gore.
(**2) See illustration facing p.60.

XX. THE BABYLONIAN GODS AND GODDESSES

"The examination of names is the beginning of learning." (Socrates)

Assyriologists believe that a literary revival took place in Babylonia about 2000 B.C., when all
the ancient traditions of that country were collected and written down; and if, as certain facts
seem to prove, Cain settled in Babylonia about 1800 years before that date, those traditions, full
of references to Biblical characters and events, are easily accounted for. They, I hold, are
nothing less than the corrupted version of the ancient history recorded in the first chapters of the
Bible. Most of the examples I quote are taken from translations given by Professor Sayce. They
are dull and tiresome reading, because of their contradictions and absurdities, but for my purpose
it is of course necessary to examine them. The Professor tells us that the first Babylonian gods
were a trio - "the supreme gods Anu, Mul-lil and Ea," and there was a fourth god called
Tammuz. These four gods seem to be regarded by Assyriologists as the models from which
Adam, Eve, the Devil and Abel were drawn, but my contention is that, on the contrary, they were
the deified representatives of those Bible characters, and that it was Cain who deified their
memories by transferring to them some of the attributes of God. This contention finds support
in the notable fact that Cain himself had no place in that oldest group of gods. (**1) Had he not
been its inventor he would surely have been included in it, a fit companion for Bel the Devil.
Professor Sayce says about the fourth god Tammuz, whom he calls the prototype of Abel:

( Page 33 )

"The primitive home of Tammuz had been in

that Garden of Eden or Edin which Babylonian tradition placed in the immediate vicinity of
Eridu, (**1) hence his mother (and wife) is called 'the lady of Edin'." (Hibbert Lectures, p.23)
He also says that like Abel, Tammuz was a shepherd and was killed when young. (**2)
Assyriologists suggest that the Biblical "Garden of Eden" was so-named after some locality in
Babylonia, but my suggestion is that the Babylonian Eden or Eridu (as it is sometimes called)
more probably took its name from the original garden which Cain had known of in his youth,
and that the name was brought into "The Land of Nod" by him. Professor Sayce seems to identify
the second god of the great trio with satan by writing:

"The supreme Bel was Mul-lil who was called the god of the lower world, his messengers were
nightmares and demons of the night, and from whom came the plagues that oppressed man-
kind." (Hibbert Lectures, p.147)

(**1) As we shall see, Sargon was deified in later times.

Another writer says:

"Mul-lil was the original Bel of the Babylonian mythology and was the lord of the surface of the
earth and of the affairs of men." (**3) (Chaldean Genesis, G. Smith p.58) Having identified
these two gods with Abel and satan, it is obvious that Anu and Ea (or Ishtar) must have
represented Adam and Eve.

Professor Sayce says that:

"the city of Erech was the seat of the gods Anu and Ishtar who were afterwards adopted by
the Hebrews."

and as they certainly did not adopt them as gods this must mean that he regards them as the
prototypes of Adam and Eve.

(**1) "It was at Eridu that the Garden of the Babylonian Eden was placed."
(Religion of the Babylonians, p.263)
(**2) Hibbert Lectures, p.245
(**3) The Devil is described three times by our Lord as the Prince of this world.
John xii, 31; xiv,30; xvi,11.

It is noticeable that while in later mythology gods were never by any chance reduced to the status
of men, Anu, if he had really been the model from which Adam was drawn, must have been
divested by the supposed writer of Genesis of the higher estate ever attributed to a pagan god;
and Ishtar must have been reduced from her position as "Queen of Heaven," to that of a mere
woman. They, with the god Tammuz, would have been the only exceptions to an otherwise
invariable rule the mythological system. About the god Anu, George Smith writes:

"At the head of Babylonian mythology stands a deity who was sometimes identified with the
heavens, sometimes considered as the ruler and god of heaven. This deity is named Anu, his sign
is the simple star, the symbol of divinity, and at other times the Maltese cross. Anu represents
abstract divinity, and he appears as an original principle, perhaps as the original principle of
nature." (Chaldean Genesis, p.54) Anu is called in one inscription "the king of angels and spirits,
lord of the city of Erech." (**1) In another, "Anu is chief, the father of the gods." (**2) The
temple of Erech (Enoch) was called "the house of Anu," and "the house of heaven." (**3) Anu
is also called "the lord of the old city", meaning Erech (otherwise called Unuk.) The glorification
of Anu left no place in Babylonian mythology for a Supreme Being, although, as we shall see,

( Page 34 )

the existence of God was known from the earliest historical times in Babylonia. Anu's only
rivals in mythology were Bel,
PG 73

whom his titles as well as his wife are sometimes transferred, (**3) and Marduk, who in later
Babylonian mythology inherited, Bel's and also Anu's designations. Usually Anu is described
as the god of heaven, Bel as that of the earth, and Ea or Enki of the waters. In the Babylonian
story of the Creation of the world we find the lines:

"Ishtar with Anu the king into a noble seat they raised and in the government of heaven they
fixed." (Chaldean Genesis, p.109) This is, I suggested, a veiled reference to Cain's deification of
Adam and Eve; and the inscription in which Anu and Ishtar are called lord and lady of the holy
mound (**4) is probably an allusion to the Garden of Eden. In a curious myth translated by
Professor Sayce, the Tree of Life (or perhaps that of Knowledge) is surely referred to in
connection with Anu, Ea and Bel:

"The altars amid the waters, the treasures of Anu, Bel and Ea, the tablets of the gods, the
delivering of the oracle of heaven and earth, and the cedar-tree the beloved of the great gods,
which their hand has caused to grow." (Hibbert Lectures, p.241) Again the Tree of Life may be
meant by "the mighty plant of Anu which Ea, the divine antelope, carried to a place of purity."
(**5) The third member of the trio of gods is Ea, who Professor Jastrow says was the god of
water:

"the third in a great triad, of which the other two members were Anu, the god of heaven, and Bel
the god of earth." (Religion of Babylonia and Assyria.) Here again I find myself at loggerheads
with the professors who regard Ea as distinct from Ishtar, while in my opinion they both
represent Eve. Their reason being presumably that Ea is a male god, while Ishtar is nearly
always represented as a goddess, but the fact that, although Ishtar is often Anu's

partner, Ea is the third in the first triad of gods in which the two others represent Adam and the
devil, leaves no doubt in my mind that Ea as well as Ishtar represent Eve. Unless we realize the
priests' system of obscurantism we cannot make head or tail of their writings. Other reasons for
regarding Ishtar and Ea as one and the same are that they are both described as parents of
Tammuz, the mythological representative of Abel, and are both associated with the serpent;
(**7) and it could scarcely be a mere coincidence that while Anu is connected in the inscriptions
with both Ishtar and Ea, Adam's wife is called in the Bible both Ishar "Woman in Hebrew" and
Eve. Ishtar is usually represented as "the Great Mother," the Dea Myrionymus or goddess of ten
thousand names who, Professor Sayce tells us, was represented by all the Babylonian goddesses
and most of the later Egyptian, Greek and Latin ones; and who is obviously the deified form of
Eve, for among her many names she is called "Mother of Mankind", (**8) "the Lady of Eden"
(**9), "the Beloved of Anu" (**10), "the Goddess of Birth" (**11), "the Goddess of the Tree of
Life" (**12), "the Lady of Rising" (**13), etc. Under the name of Nina or Nintu (**14) Ishtar is
said to have divined all the mysteries of the gods - surely a reference to Eve's acquisition of
God-like knowledge described in the Bible. Professor King says:

"Nina ... who could divine all the mysteries of the gods." (Sumer and Akkad, p.266) And the next
lines can only refer to Eve's remorse at the sight of the terrible results of her disobedience:

"Ishtar cried aloud like a woman in travail, the Lady of the gods lamented with a loud voice
(saying):

(**1) Chaldean Genesis p.53
(**2) Legends of Babylonia and Egypt, p.109. L. King

( Page 35 )

(**3) Chaldean Genesis p. 55. The name "old city" applied to Erech seems
consistent with the theory that that city was built by Cain, for his city would
naturally have been the oldest in Babylonia; and another name for Erech is "the
place of the settlement" - is also appropriate if Cain first settled there. (Hibbert
Lectures p.185) Professor Sayce says that the name of "Unuk is found on the
oldest bricks" and is "the same as Enoch built by Cain" (Index Hibbert Lectures)
(**4) One of Ishtar's titles as wife of Bel was Belit-ili or Innana. Legends of
Babylonia. p.63
(**5) Hibbert Lectures p.113
(**6) Hibbert Lectures p.530
(**7) Hibbert Lectures, p.282-283
(**8) Legends of Babylonia and Egypt, p.64 L. King
(**9) Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p.336 Sayce.
(**10) Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p.531 Sayce.
(**11) Legends of Babylonia and Egypt, p 112. L. King
(**12) Hibbert Lectures
(**13) Hibbert Lectures, p.259
(**14) "It is pretty clear that Nina, 'the lady,' must have been the primitive
Ishtar..." (Hibbert Lectures, p.282)

The old race of man hath been turned back into clay, because I assented to an evil thing in the
council of gods, and agreed to a storm which hath destroyed my people that which I brought
forth." (King, Babylonia Religion, p.134)

It is consistent with my theory of the identity of Ishtar with Ea that Ea was, according to
Professor Sayce, regarded in Babylonia as "the author of knowledge and intelligence," (**1) and
was called "the God of Culture." (**2) Professor Jastrow remarks that no god shows such distinct
proof of having been submitted to "theological changes as Ea," but does not suggest, as I do, that
Ea represented Eve. It seems reasonable, however, to think that Ea, although a male god,
represented Eve, since Ishtar is sometimes turned into a male deity;

Professor Sayce speaks of:

"the doubt as to whether Ishtar were male or female." (Hibbert Lectures, p.254) and mentions
an astronomical tablet in which she is a female at sunset and a male at sunrise. (p 254) In a
curious "bilingual hymn" Ea is evidently referred to as "the mighty mother"; and allusions are
also made to Eridu or Eden, to Tammuz (Abel) and to the tree in the midst of Eden. Some of the
words are:

"In Eridu a stalk grew... in a holy place did it become green... (before) Ea was its course in Eridu,
teeming with fertility... (there is the home) of the mighty mother who passes across the sky. (In)
the midst of it was Tammuz." (Hibbert Lectures, p.238) In another cryptic writing the name of
Ea is said to be recorded upon "the core of the cedar tree" which was thought to "shatter the
power of the incubus," and to cure people possessed by devils. (**3) While another inscription
connects Ea with Eden by saying:

"The divine bulls of Ea and his wife were named the god of the house of Eden." (Hibbert
Lectures p 289) Then to confuse matters further Ea's wife Davkina is said to be the mother of
Tammuz,

(**1) Hibbert Lectures p.118
(**2) Hibbert Lectures p.136
(**3) Hibbert Lectures p.118
(**4) Hibbert Lectures p.136

( Page 36 )

Professor Sayce remarks:

"As mother of Tammuz, Davkina the wife of Ea, had a special name... As she seems to be
identified with Ishtar in the same passage, we may conclude that the compiler of the mythologi-
cal list regarded her as equally the mother and the wife of Tammuz." (Hibbert Lectures p 237)
If Ea and Ishtar (otherwise Dav-kina) represented Eve, as I believe they do, the priests excel
themselves here by making Eve her own wife. Although he does not suggest that Ea and Ishtar
were different forms of the same deity Professor Sayce notices some connection between the
two; he says that Ishtar was also Yasmu "the wise one", the "Lady of the Deep", "the Mistress of
the Abode of the Fish", and "the Voice of the Deep," and that, therefore, she must have ranked
with Ea the Fish-god and "Lord of the Deep". (**2) And at least one student of mythology
supports my contention that Ishtar and Ea were identical by saying: "Ishtar the ocean-mother and
female form of Ia." (**3) The legend of Ishtar's descent into Hell to bring back Tammuz (Abel)
is evidently, as Professor Sayce points out, the origin of the later legends of Isis and Osiris, of
Demeter and Persephone and of Eurydice and Orpheus, and according to the same authority
Ishtar became the Ashtoreth of the Canaanites, the Astarte of the Phoenicians, as well as Diana
or Artemis, Venus or Aphrodite. Ishtar's relationship to Tammuz is varied in the Inscriptions, but
in whatever form, period or country, the Great Mother is represented in mythology, she is
accompanied by a young hero who has some tragic end. Professor Sayce writes: "When the
legend of Tammuz got to Greece his mother was said to be his sister." (Hibbert Lectures) (**4)
As Anatu, Ishtar was the wife of Anu, although as Ishtar she is sometimes called his daughter,
while at other times she is said to be the daughter of Sin the Moon-god;

(**1) Western Asiatic Inscriptions. II.59-10-11. "Eridu, the seat of the Chaldean
god of culture, Ea, whose home was in the deep" Sayce Religion of the
Babylonians. p.262.
(**2) Hibbert Lectures 1887, p 111.
(**3) The Ruling Races of Prehistoric Times. J.F. Hewitt
(**4) Cambridge History, Vol I p 413. Tammuz, son of Innini. Ditto, p.404.
Innini identified with Ishtar. p 442. "Tammuz and his sister Ishtar."

Professor Jastrow says:

"Ishtar, it will be observed, is here called the daughter of the Moon-god, whereas in the
Gilgamesh Epic she appears as the daughter of Anu, the god of heaven." (Religion of Babylonia
and Assyria. p.566)

Professor Sayce writes:

"Belit the wife of Bel is sometimes identified with Ishtar, as Belit she is called 'the lady of lands,
dwelling in Enmash-mash'." (Hibbert Lectures p.237) In obscure inscriptions like those in which
Ea is mentioned, and in the constant interchange of the names and attributes of the gods and
goddesses we see what Max Muller calls the "silly and senseless" element in mythology, and
they fully justify Professor Pinches' opinion (**1) that the priests intended their writings to be as
unintelligible as possible. The savage element in mythology to which Max Muller also alludes
is shown by Professor Sayce's description of the rites and ceremonies practiced in the worship
of the goddess Ishtar, first at Erech and afterwards in other Babylonian cities.

At Erech, he says:

"Unspeakable abominations were practiced in the name of Ishtar which were outdone in horror
in other Babylonian cities. the black Ishtar, as we may call her, was the parody of the goddess
of love and the rites with which she was adored and the ministers by whom she was served were
equally parodies of the cult which was carried on at Erech. Her priestesses were the witches
who plied their unholy calling under the shadow of the night and mixed the poisonous

( Page 37 )

philters which drained away the strength of their hapless victims." (Religions of Ancient Egypt
and Babylonia, pp342-343) It is strange that Professor Sayce, who sees that the priests parodied
the earlier cults of Ishtar, seems to have no suspicion that the whole system of mythology with
all its absurdities and contradictions is, as it were, a parody of the truth and that its myths and
mysteries were in fact, as Sir William Ramsay writes: "elaborate and artificial products of a
diseased religion." (**2) On the contrary, the Professor holds, as we have seen, that the Bible
stories were founded upon the Babylonian mythology.

(**1) Times Literary Supplement, September 17th, 1925
(**2) See p.59

XXI. CAIN THE SUN-GOD MERODACH OR MARDUK

"It is by the patient accumulation of apparently trifling facts that the most important generaliza-
tions are achieved." (Deville's Prolegomena)

Although we do not find among the oldest Babylonian gods one of which Cain could have been
the prototype, we certainly find him in later mythology. He could not well have deified himself,
but his followers would naturally have honoured his memory in that way after his death. The
monuments show that Sargon was deified, (**1) and the words "Sargon is my god" are found in
a few inscriptions, but it is (in my opinion) the most celebrated of all the Babylonian gods,
Merodach the sun-god, who was Sargon's real representative in mythology. To Professor Sayce's
unanswered question "Now, who was this Merodach, this patron god of Babylon?" (**2) my
answer is therefore, the mythological representative of Sargon (Cain); and certainly the name
Merodach would have well suited the rebellious Cain if, as one writer suggests, it was derived
from marad, to rebel. (**3) It is interesting to note that the Jews spoke of Cain as "the first
free-thinker," (**4) It may have been, as Lord Byron suggests, that Cain was the only one of the
first few Adamites to rebel against the sentence of death pronounced upon all mankind. (Cain, a
Mystery) One reason for thinking that Merodach represented Cain is that he was the patron god
of Babylon, which city the inscriptions show existed in Sargon's time: "The Omens place the
founding of the city Agade soon after Sargon's first invasion of the west. He took soil from the
outer walls of Babylon and consecrated the boundaries of his new capital by tracing its outer
walls with the earth of the holy city of Marduk. He made it after the model of Babylon.
(Cambridge History, Vol. I. p.407) and in the Encyclopaedia Britannica we read: "The history
of the city of Babylon can now be traced back to the days of Sargon of Agade (before 3000 B.C.),
who appears to have given that city its name. There is every reason to assume, therefore, that the
cult of Marduk existed already at this early period." (Vol. I, Ed. II, Marduk.) If we rule out the
possibility of its having been built by the pre-Adamites, Babylon may have been one of the seven
cities attributed to Cain in Jewish traditions. (**5) Nebuchadnezzar called Merodach in inscrip-
tions "the first born, the glorious, the first born of the gods, Merodach the prince," (*6) suitable
titles, one would think, for the first-born of Adam's race. Marduk or Merodach is the most elusive
of the Babylonian gods, the recipient of at least fifty names (**7) and of most of the attributes
given to the first gods Anu, Ea and Bel. But the fact that Merodach is always called the son or
the first-born of Ea at once identifies him with Eve's eldest son Cain, if I am right in assuming
that the god Ea was the male form of Eve. Here we have an example of the intricate method of
mystification employed by the priests; for not only is Merodach said to be the eldest-born of Ea,
but he is also shown to be the eldest-born of Ishtar since Davkina, the wife of Ea is another form
of Ishtar. (**8) To crown their inconsistencies, in the story of the Creation, Merodach's father is
called, not Ea as elsewhere, but Anu. (**9) Since Anu represents Adam, and Ea and Ishtar
represent Eve, who could Merodach their eldest born have represented but Cain? In some
inscriptions Tammuz also is called the son of Ea and Davkina, and so is shown to be the brother
of Merodach as Abel was of Cain:

(**1) Times History, Vol. I p 362. Cambridge History, Vol I p.409

( Page 38 )

(**2) Hibbert lectures, p.92
(**3) One Vol. Bible Commentary, p.17
(**4) One Vol. Bible Commentary, p. 1064
(**5) Biblical Antiquities of Philo, M.R. James. p.77
(**6) Hibbert Lectures, p.97
(**7) "Assari - always used of Marduk as an epithet only, as in the tablet of the
Fifty Names." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 1922, 8.
(**8) "Ishtar inherited the attributes of Davkina." Hibbert Lectures, p.264
(**9) Ency. Brit., Ed. II Canis Major

Professor Sayce writes:

"Tammuz, the son of the River-god Ea." (Hibbert Lectures, p.212) Sargon, too, is called the son
of Ea, and one inscription in which he is described as such is a good example of the priests'
method of obscuring the truth while allowing it to appear, as it were, between the lines. It runs:
"Sargon, the mighty man, son of the god Ea, prince of the moon-god, begotten of Tammuz and
Ishtar." (Worship of the Dead, Garnier, p.399) The name of Tammuz is evidently introduced in
this inscription as a blind, but the priests, by showing that Sargon was the son of both Ea and
Ishtar, support my view that both those names represented Eve; while the fact that both Sargon
and Merodach are called the son of Ea and Ishtar seems to prove that Merodach was the
mythological representative of Sargon, and that, if Cain was Sargon, Merodach was Cain's
mythological representative. Had the priests, whose writings show that Merodach and Tammuz
were brothers, also shown that Merodach murdered Tammuz it would have been too obvious,
that Cain's murder of Abel was referred to; it is not surprising therefore that no hint of such a
thing has been found in the inscriptions. At the same time it seems unlikely that so remarkable
an episode should have escaped comment, considering how other events recounted in the first
chapters of Genesis were repeatedly alluded to. My suggestion is therefore that a double was
invented for Merodach - another Sun-god called Adar - and (**1) "Marduk is king... they
bestowed upon him scepters, thrones and palaces... by his side he slung the net, the gift of his
father Anu." The Story of Creation. The Origin of Bible Tradition. A.T. Clay. p.203. "Anu had
placed a club and a bow in the hand of Merodach." (Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p.102) PG 82 that
he, instead of Merodach, was said to have murdered Tammuz. Other Babylonian gods had
doubles; and

Professor Sayce writes:

"In the Shepherd Tabulu however, we have the double of the Shepherd Tammuz himself."
(Hibbert Lectures, p.212)

Since the shepherd Tammuz had a double, the Sun-god Merodach may also have had one, and
that that double was the Sun-god Adar seems certain, for we find that Ares, his representative in
Greek mythology was said to have murdered Tammuz; and since the Greek and Roman
mythologies are known to have been inspired by that of Babylonia, (**1) we may suppose that
although no hint of the murder of Abel by Cain has been found in Babylonian inscriptions the
story found its way into Greece and Rome.

(**1) Ency. Brit., Ed. II Canis Major.

XXII. ADAR AND ARES CONNECTED WITH CAIN

Professor Sayce says:

"Another title connects Adar with the Ares of Greek mythology, who in the form of the wild boar
slew the sun-god Tammuz." (Hibbert Lectures, p. 153) and he connects Adar with Cain by

( Page 39 )

saying that Adar's "title 'lord of the date'... the chief fruit of Babylonia... reminds us of Cain, who
was 'a tiller of the ground'." (Hibbert Lectures, p.153)

The title "lord of the date" also connects Adar indirectly with Sargon of Akkad, for the "dates of
Akkad" are often mentioned in inscriptions. (**1) As we see later, Merodach is credited with the
irrigation and agriculture of Babylonia, (**2) again suggesting Cain, and hence perhaps the title
of "lord of the date" given to Merodach's double Adar.

If, as Professor Sayce points out, Tammuz was the mythological Abel, Merodach, the brother of
Tammuz, evidently represented Cain; and if, as the Professor suggests, the Greek god Ares who
murdered Tammuz was the later form of the Babylonian god Adar, Adar also represented Cain.
We may therefore assume that Merodach and Adar were identical - that they both represented
Cain - and that anything said about them in inscriptions is important for that reason. The fact, for
instance, that Adar is said to be a giant, encourages the hypothesis that the first Adamites were
of great stature.

(**1) See p.131
(**2) p. 86-87
(**3) p. 144

XXIII. MORE LINKS BETWEEN MERODACH AND SARGON

Another link between Merodach and Sargon is that they are both represented as high priests;
Professor Sayce writes:

"The dignity of high priest in Babylonia was derived from Merodach." (Hibbert Lectures, 1887,
p.551) and remarks that Sargon is called in inscriptions "the first high priest." (Ditto, p.26)
Again, both Sargon and Merodach are said to be law givers; Professor Sayce says that the former
is called: "the deviser of constituted law... the very wise" (Ditto, p.28) and that "Merodach is
called Asari-elim, the mighty prince, the light (of the gods), the director of the laws of Anu
(Mul-lil) (and Ea)." (Ditto, p.284) Merodach is probably referred to below as Sar-Ziri, for who
but Cain could have been the king of the desert, son of Adam and Eve? "Anu and Anatu have a
numerous family; among their sons is Sar-Ziri the king of the desert." (Chaldean Genesis, p.55)
Granted that Merodach represented Cain and that Ea was the female form of Ishtar or Eve, the
following inscription refers to Cain's indebtness to his mother for his knowledge:

"Moreover he, Merodach, possessed all his, Ea's wisdom; 'My child' Ea had said to him, 'What
is there that thou knowest not and what could I teach thee? What I know thou knowest also'."
(Mesopotamia, Delaporte, pg.141)

In the following passage we find, it seems to me, two different descriptions of Cain, Merodach
representing him when under his mother's influence, and Adar representing him in later life
under the influence of the Devil.

Professor Sayce writes:

"Adar bears the same relation to Mul-lil that Merodach bears to Ea. Each alike is the son and
messenger of the older god. But whereas the errands upon which Merodach is sent are errands
of mercy and benevolence, the errands of Adar are those that befit an implacable warrior. He
contends not against the powers of darkness, like Merodach, for the father whose orders he obeys
is himself the ruler of the powers of darkness. It is against mankind, as in the story of the Deluge,
that his arms are directed. He is the solar hero who belongs to the darkness and not to the light."
(Hibbert Lectures, p.154) If, as I hold, the priests represented Cain as the Sun-god Merodach or
Adar, and amused themselves by addressing hymns to him in that guise, the following lines may
refer to Cain's irrigation works in Babylonia:

( Page 40 )

1. Who can escape from thy message (piridi or puridi)?
2. Thy word is the supreme snare which is stretched towards heaven and earth.
3. It turns to the sea, and the sea dreads it.
4. It turns to the marsh, and the marsh mourns.
5. It turns to the channel of the Euphrates, and
6. The word of Merodach disturbs its bed.
7. Oh lord, thou art supreme! who is there that rivals thee?
8. O Merodach, among the gods as many as have a name thou art he that
coverest them!

(Hibbert Lectures, p.497)

It also seems possible that the following "litany" refers to Cain's agricultural achievements in
Babylonia:

17. Incantation - O Merodach, lord of the world...prince,
18. strong one, unique, mighty (gitmalu)...
19. hero (tizqaru) supreme, who (subjugates) hostility...
20. forceful, king of...
21. Merodach, whose view (paqtu) is (extended over the world)...
22. vision and seership (?)... the glorious one
23. divine son of the holy mound... (Garden of Eden?) (see p.79)
24. The deluge of the weapon his hand (directs)...
30. gladdener (khada) of the corn and the ... creator of the wheat and the
barley, renewer of the herd. (**1) (Hibbert Lectures, p.537).

It is suggestive, too, that while Cain in the Bible is "a tiller of the ground" Merodach in the
Babylonian Zodiacal scheme was "the ploughman of the celestial fields, the Sun-god who trod
his steady path through the heavenly signs like the patient ox dragging the plough through the
fields below." (Hibbert Lectures, p.291) and that under the title of Asari, Merodach is said to be
"the donor of fruitfulness, the founder of agriculture, The creator of grain and plants, who causes
the green herb to spring forth." (Clay, The Origins of Biblical Traditions, p.211) That Cain, i.e.
Merodach, brought the knowledge of spiritual things into Babylonia may be hinted at in the
following words:

"(To) Merodach the prince of the gods, the interpreter (bar-bar) of the spirits of heaven and
(earth)." (**2)

Another indication that Cain was represented by the god Merodach (Marduk) is that while En-lil
is one of the gods who is said in inscriptions to have "committed to
PG 87

Marduk the rule of all the lands," he is also said to have bestowed Sargon's dominions upon him.
Professor King writes:

(**1) One of the latest discoveries is that wheat was grown in Babylonia in the
earliest historical period. See article in The Times newspaper, January 29th, 1927,
by S. Langdon, headed "Wheat in 3500 B.C."
(**2) (Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p.128)

"It has long been known that the early Babylonian king Sharru-kin, or Sargon of Akkad, had
pressed up the Euphrates to the Mediterranean, and we now have information that he too was
fired by the desire for precious wood and metal... We learn that after his complete subjugation
of southern Babylonia he turned his attention to the west, and that En-lil gave him the lands 'from
the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea,' and from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf." (Legends of

( Page 41 )

Babylon and Egypt p.8) To anyone who accepts my view that the god Marduk represented Cain,
the following quotation will be interesting as describing some of his activities in Babylonia.

Dr Hall writes:

"Legends... assign to the Babylonian god Marduk the work of reducing the primeval chaos to
order by the separation of land from water and the first founding of homes of men... we evidently
have here a very vivid recollection of the time when the whole of southern Babylonia was a
swamp: the primitive inhabitants were scattered about on various islands which emerges out of
the fens, and in these islands, towns arose, just as Ely and Peterborough arose in England under
similar circumstances: dykes were heaped up and the hallows were gradually reclaimed, till the
demon of the watery chaos Tiamat, finally vanquished, retreated from the land; Marduk had
created the earth and the two great rivers, and, in the words of the legend, 'declared their names
to be good'." (History of the Near East, p.175)

The priests have successfully blurred their picture of the Sun-god, not only by giving him several
names (Merodach, Asari, Adar, etc), but also by introducing two other Sun-gods, Samas and
Tammuz, into their writings; but Samas is known to have been a later conception (probably
representing Shem) and Tammuz was, as we have seen, Abel.

If I am right in believing that Sargon (King Cain) was the great Sun-god of Babylonian
mythology, the discovery is of no small importance, for all over the world, in pre-historic times,
went "culture-heroes," calling themselves Children of the Sun, and organizing amazing civiliza-
tions for which explorers have been at a loss to account. (**1) Modern researches show the
probability that those civilizations originated in either Egypt or Babylonia, and since it is now
taught (**2) that the first great rulers of Egypt went there from Mesopotamia, it seems reasona-
ble to believe that Babylonia was the fountain head of those civilizations. Professor Sayce writes:
"The Pharaonic Egyptians - the Egyptians, that is to say, who embanked the Nile, who trans-
formed the marsh and the desert into cultivated fields, who built the temples and tombs, and left
behind them the monuments we associate with Egyptian culture - seem to have come from Asia;
it is probable that their first home was in Babylonia." (The Religions of Ancient Egypt and
Babylonia, p.22) A more recent writer, looking round for something which might have inspired
man in the beginning with the idea of irrigation, argues that its invention more probably took
place in Egypt, because while the effect which the flooding of the Nile had upon the Egyptian
crops may have inspired the inhabitants with the idea of artificial irrigation, no such lesson would
have been taught to the Babylonians by the flooding of their rivers. (**3) He therefore suggests
that the art of irrigation first learned in Egypt was taken from there into Babylonia, and regards
Egypt as the cradle of civilization.

(**1) In some far-off lands the Sun-god's name was "Kane." (The Children of the
Sun W.J. Perry, p.167) "Mr. Perry has described at great length and with a wealth
of detail the amazing story of the penetration by these 'Children of the Sun' of
nearly the whole world, so that the signs of them are visible in India, in the Malay,
in China, Japan and the Pacific Islands and in Central America and Peru (the
Incas)." (H.J. Massingham, Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum, p.30)
(**2) By Professor Sayce, Flinders Petrie, Elliot Smith and others.
(**3) The Children of the Sun, W.J. Perry, p.429.

Professor Cherry agrees with this and says:"Those who inaugurated the irrigation system of
Mesopotamia must have proceeded with deliberate intent." (The Children of the Sun, W.J. Perry,
p.429)

That deliberate intent I ascribe to Sargon of Akkad, and as there is really no evidence to show in
which of these lands irrigation first existed this supposition is surely warranted in view of the
probability that he was Cain. (**1) Science supplies no satisfactory explanation of the ancient

( Page 42 )

irrigation of Babylonia and Egypt. All attempts to trace its evolution have been fruitless. Nothing
less that the God-like knowledge possessed by Adam and Eve and its transference to their sons
can adequately account for it.

A modern novelist makes the philosopher of his imagination say:

"Wherever agriculture went there went with it traditions of a blood sacrifice, a human sacrifice.
I have never been able to imagine satisfactorily why this should have been so; but very plainly
it was so.... The Maya, the Aztec religions were insanely bloody." (World of William Clissold,
H.G. Wells, p.217) The mad wickedness of Cain and his descendants offer, I contend, the most
reasonable solution of this problem. (**2)

(**1) See Appendix F.
(**2) See Appendix D. p. iv. Also p.127.

XXIV. ABEL'S MEMORY INSULTED

While Cain, as Merodach, seems to be honoured with such titles as "the redeemer of mankind,"
"the restorer to life," "the raiser from the dead," (**1) the name Tammuz applied by the priests
to Abel was probably intentionally insulting, just as the titles when applied to Cain (i.e. Sargon)
must have been intentionally misleading or ironical, since there is every reason to regard Cain as
Satan's staunch ally. If, as I hope to show, the name of Tammuz was an insulting one Professor
Sayce's statement that "the name of Tammuz probably grew up in the court of Sargon" (**2)
acquires a new significance. Professor Delitzsch asserts that the name Tammuz meant "Wahres
aechtes kind," and another authority that it meant "lord of life," but Dr. Ball, in a paper of the
Society of Biblical Archaeology (1894), argues that it really meant "a pig" and "survives to this
day in the Turkish 'domuz,' a hog or pig," and adds: "The Chinese presents us with a series of
terms for pig in which both elements of the Acadian Domuzi (pig) are evidently found." This
opinion receives involuntary support from Sir James Frazer, who says that Adonis and Attis,
who, he tells us, were later forms of Tammuz, were sometimes regarded as boars or pigs, and
that: "it may be laid down as a rule that an animal which is said to have injured a god was
originally the god himself. Perhaps the cry of 'Hyes Attis, Hyes Attis' which was raised by the
worshippers of Attis may be neither more nor less that 'Pig Attis';

(**1) Assyria; its Princes, Priests and People. Sayce p.60
(**2) Hibbert Lectures, p.233

Hyes being possibly a Phrygian form of the Greek 'Hyes,' a pig." (Golden Bough, 2nd Edition,
Vol 2, p.22) (**1)

He also remarks that it was: "consistent with a hazy state of religious thought that the pig should
have been held to be an embodiment of the divine Adonis." (Golden Bough, 2nd Edition, Vol 2,
p.23) The only consistency I can find in this paradoxical arrangement is that in a country where
Cain was the "hero of heroes," Abel's memory may have been insulted by the undignified
appellation of pig. That this was the case is shown to be probable by the fact that although the
Babylonian inscriptions do not connect Ishtar (Eve), the mother of Tammuz with a pig, Demeter,
her representative in Grecian mythology, is connected with one. Demeter was unquestionably a
later form of Ishtar, for just as Ishtar is said to descend into the under-world to rescue Tammuz,
so Demeter descends into Hades to rescue Persephone - just as Ishtar's departure causes all
fertility to cease, so it ceases upon Demeter's withdrawal into a hiding place, and just as Ea, the
male form of Ishtar, bestows upon mankind through Merodach, the arts of agriculture, irrigation
and law, so in Greece those arts are attributed to Demeter. One of Demeter's emblems, a serpent,
(**2) serves to connect her with Eve, while another, a little pig, connects her with Abel (Tammuz).
"Her attributes are poppies and ears of corn (also a symbol of fruitfulness), a basket of fruit and
a little pig." (**2) (See illustration facing.) And so in classic art we find the mother goddess

( Page 43 )

holding a pig in her arms - a miniature boar with formidable bristles - the boar who slew Tammuz
and was, therefore, Tammuz himself, (**3) Tammuz, the shepherd who lived in Eden, who was
killed when young and was loved and mourned by the goddess Ishtar, the "Mother of Mankind,"
and "Lady of Eden." Who but Abel could the pig represent, and who but Eve the goddess? This
is a good example of the grotesque and mocking character of the Babylonian mythology, and of
its subtle entry into Europe. It is surprising that history is being largely evolved from rambling
statements about mythological characters in the "Sumerian language," while the historical value
of the clear-cut stories of Genesis is denied; for as the logician.

(**1) "Thus the monster from whom Andromeda was rescued is merely another
representation of herself." (The Evolution of the Dragon, Elliot Smith, p.119)
(**2) and (**2) Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, Nettleship, p.178
(**3) Professor Sayce says: "Attys was Tammuz" (Hibbert Lectures, p.235),
while Sir J. Frazer connects Attys with Adonis (see p.103). George Smith says
"Tammuz became Adonis" (Chaldean Genesis, p.238, 1880)

Whateley wrote:

"The heathen mythology not only is not true, but was not even supported as true; it not only
deserves no faith, but it demanded none. The very pretension to truth, the very demand of faith,
were characteristic distinctions of Christianity." At the same time, true history lies hidden
between the lines of the Babylonian inscriptions if, as I hold, they are the corrupt version of the
events recorded in the Bible. When this view is adopted the "Legend of Sargon", which we shall
now examine, becomes full of significance.

XXV. SARGON (KING CAIN) ADOPTED BY AKKI THE DEVIL

It can hardly be considered a coincidence that while St. John says that Cain was "of that wicked
one," referring to the Devil, Sargon is described by the Babylonian priests as being the son or
protégé of the Devil. This is one of the strongest indications of the identity of Cain with Sargon,
who in different inscriptions is called "the son of Bel the just," "the son of Itti-Bel" and the "son
of Dati-Enlil," while Sargon's country is called the "realm of Enlil" (or Bel) who is said to have
conferred that realm upon him. In the "Legend of Sargon" he calls his adopted father "Akki,"
which is evidently another name for the Devil, for it is closely connected with the name of
Nakash the Hebrew serpent - with Ahi, the water-god and serpent - with Ahri-man (**1), who
in the Persian religion is the "source of all evil, the devil" - with Agni, the Indian god of fire -
with the Egyptian Naka, the serpent - with Naga, the Indian serpent-god - with the Maori
demiurge Tiki and with Agu or Acu, another name for the Babylonian moon-god, otherwise
called Sin. (**2) The moon-god Sin is evidently Bel or En-lil under another name, for in later
times the original trio Anu, Ea and Bel became Shamash, Sin and Ishtar (Shamash supplanting
Anu, Ishtar supplanting Ea, and Sin, Bel.) (**3) The Legend of Sargon, which was discovered
and translated by the late Professor Rawlinson in about the year 1867, is said to have been
inscribed in its present form in the seventh century

before Christ. In the Times History we find the following translation: "Shargina, the powerful
king, the king of Agade, am I. My mother was of noble family... my father I did not know,
whereas the brother of my father inhabited the mountains. My town was Azipiranu, which is
situated on the bank of the Euphrates. My mother of noble family (?)... conceived me and gave
birth to me secretly. She put me into a basket of shurru (reeds?) and shut up the mouth (?) of it
(?) with bitumen; she cast me into the river, which did not overwhelm (?) me. The river carried
me away and brought me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki... took me up in... Akki... reared me
to boyhood. Akki the drawer of water made me a gardener. During my activity as gardener,
Ishtar loved me... years exercised dominion... years I commanded the black-headed people... and
ruled them, etc." (Times History, Vol. I p.360)

( Page 44 )

(**1) Dr. Moffat gives Ahiman as name of giants (Nephilim) in Numbers xiv,22.
(**2) "Ur or Aku, Sin and Itu, in later times generally termed Sin." (Chaldean
Genesis, G. Smith p.55)
(**3) "A second triad was formed of Sin, the moon-god and his two children
Shamas and Ishtar, the planet Venus." (Mesopotamia, Delaporte, p.139)

The legend resembles in some respects the story of Moses, and this is not surprising. The priests
of the seventh century before Christ, who are credited with these inscriptions, must have known
the early history of Moses and that they should have mixed it up with that of Cain agrees with
their usual method of confusing facts. The change of scene from the banks of the Nile to those
of the Euphrates is just what might be expected; while the story of Moses in the ark of bulrushes,
rescued by a princess, may have appealed to their dramatic instincts. On the other hand Cain's
story is more than hinted at; his occupation as a gardener - the love of Ishtar (or Eve) for him in
his youth - his mysterious and sudden arrival in Babylonia - his adoption by the Devil and his
long rule over and inferior race. The fact that Sargon says that when he was a gardener Ishtar
loved him, might well refer to the cessation of Eve's love for Cain after his murder of Abel.
Apparently taking the legend as true history Professor Sayce comments upon it:

"The Euphrates refused to drown its future lord, and bore the child in safety to Akki 'the
irrigator,' the representative of the Acadian peasants (**1) who tilled the land for their Semitic
masters. In this lowly condition and among a subjugated race Sargon was brought up. Akki took
compassion on the little waif, and reared him as if he had been his own son. As he grew older he
was set to till the garden and to cultivate the fruit trees, and while engaged in this humble work
attracted the love of the goddess Ishtar. Then came the hour of his deliverance from servile
employment, and, like David, he made his way to a throne. For long years he ruled the
black-headed race." (Hibbert Lectures, p.27) The choice lies therefore between this charming
and intimate story and my different explanation of the legend, namely, that it is a parody upon
the true history of Cain who, adopting the Devil as his adviser, ruled over the pre-Adamites once
feared by him.

As an example of the priests' contradictions, Sargon says in this legend that he "knew not his
father," while he elsewhere claims Dati-Enlil as his father. Professor King who, like Professor
Sayce, takes the inscriptions seriously, says: "that Shar-Gani-sharri (Sargon) was the actual
founder of his dynasty is clear from the inscription upon his gate-sockets found at Nippur, which
ascribe no title to his father, Dati-Enlil, proving that his family had not even held the patesiate
or govern ship of Akkad under the suzerainty of Kish." (Sumer and Akkad, p.232)

One wonders how authorities who accept these legends as history account for Sargon's contra-
dictory statements as to his origin. In connection with the different titles given to the Devil,
another possibility is suggested here for what it is worth - may not the name Akkad, sometimes
applied to Babylonia in inscriptions, have been taken from Akki the Devil, for parts (**1) Note
that these "Acadian peasants" were the people (otherwise called Sumerians) whom Assyriolo-
gists have brought themselves to accept as the founders of Babylonian civilization and culture.
PG 96 of Babylonia seem to have been called after Cain? The Cambridge History speaks of "the
Old Khana on the middle Euphrates," (**1) and although Professor Waddell suggests that the
name meant the Land of the Canes (or reeds) and was descriptive of the original wild aspect of
Babylonia, (**2) it seems to me as probable that it meant the Land of Cain. Especially as George
Smith writes of a town in Babylonia, called Kan-nan, of which the inhabitants were called
Kanunai (or Konini? He remarks that they must not be confused with the Canaanites of
Phoenicia, (**3) but for reasons given in Appendix C., pp.2,3, my own belief is that in both cases
the names were derived from Cain.

(**1) Vol. I, p.467. And see above, p.15
(**2) Asiatic Review, April 1926
(**3) Chaldean Genesis, 1880, p.316

( Page 45 )

XXVI. "THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY"

Judging from the frequent mention of a supreme spirit of evil in the Babylonian inscriptions the
Devil was more real to the ancient Babylonians than to some modern thinkers. He was, as we
have seen, Sargon's rescuer and protector, the donor of Sargon's dominions and subjects, the
deity worshipped by Sargon who is called the priest (**1), and he is addressed as the equal or
superior of Anu ("the father of the gods" and "king of heaven") in many of the hymns, prayers
and incantations. Sheer dread of him must, one would think, have inspired such intercessions as:
"O divine Enlil father of Sumer, O shepherd of the dark-headed people, O hero who sees by thy
own power. Strong lord, directing mankind." (Religions of Babylonia and Assyria, M. Jastrow,
p.72) (**2) Very different sentiments are expressed by such fragments as the following: "The
evil spirit hath lain in wait in the desert, Unto the side of the man hath drawn nigh. The evil
genius for ever is rampant And none can resist him. The evil ghost goeth furtively in the desert
and Causeth slaughter among men, The evil Devil prowleth in the City It hath no rest (?) from
slaughtering men." (The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, R.C. Thompson, Vol 2, p.105)
And there is a grim appropriateness in the title given to Bel in some inscriptions, i.e. "Sin the Up
lifter of Horns," (**3)

(**1) See ante p.54
(**2) See Appendix F.
(**3) See p.55

Only a more intimate acquaintance with the evil spirit than we can easily imagine can explain
the existence in Babylonia of the great work in seventy-two books (as Professor Sayce describes
it) which formed part of Sargon's library, and is called "Observations" or "Illuminations" of Bel.
(**1)

Professor Sayce writes:

"Up to the time of Berossos, however, it was remembered that the god Bel himself was its
traditional author, and the work is sometimes quoted as simply 'Bel'." (Hibbert Lectures, p.29)
"In the 'Observations of Bel' the stars are already invested with a divine character. The planets
are gods like the sun and moon, and the stars have already been identified with certain deities of
the official pantheon, or else have been dedicated to them. The whole heaven, as well as the
periods of the moon, has been divided between the three supreme divinities, Anu, Bel and Ea. In
fact, there is an astro-theology, a system of sabaism, as it would have been called half a century
ago. This astro-theology must go back to the very earliest times. The cuneiform characters alone
are a proof of this." (p 400) These remarks offer food for reflection. Who, if not the Devil, "the
price of the power of the air," "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" could
have invented this astro-theology, the worship of the whole host of heaven? That it was invented
by an inferior race (probably Negroid) is in my opinion out of the question, although some
Assyriologists are ready to ascribe it to the "Sumerians."

The Professor writes about the "Observations of Bel":

"It was translated in later days into Greek by the historian Berossos; and though supplemented
by (**1) In the Observations of Bel we may trace the origin of human sacrifice, against which
practice the Israelites were warned after they left Egypt, where it was carried on by the pagan
priests. (Lev. xviii,21) Professor Sayce writes: "In the great work on astronomy called The
Observations of Bel we are told that 'on the high places the son is burnt'" (Hibbert Lectures,
1887, p.59) and he remarks that this "proves that the sacrifice of children was a Babylonian
institution." PG 99 numerous editions in its passage through the hands of generations of
Babylonian astronomers, the original work contained so many records of eclipses as to demon-
strate the antiquity of Babylonian astronomy even in the remote age of Sargon himself." (Hibbert
Lectures, p.29) With all due deference I would suggest that those numerous records of eclipses

( Page 46 )

may have been interpolated by later generations of priests. Considering the well-known tendency
of ancient historians to exaggerate the antiquity of their nations, such interpolations may have
been meant to give the impression that their history went back for thousands of years. If the Devil
was the originator of that system of astro-theology it might, of course, have existed for countless
ages before Adam, except for the fact that in the "Observations of Bel" the heavens are divided
between Anu, Ea and Bel, which suggests that it was invented after the creation of our first
parents. There are other indications that the Devil played a real and substantial part in ancient
Babylonia; he seems, for instance, to have been looked upon as its king-maker. Professor Sayce,
describing the inauguration ceremony of the Babylonian kings, writes: "The claimant to the
sovereignty took the hand of Bel, as it was called, and then became the adopted son of god. Until
this ceremony, however much he might be a king de facto he was not so de jure... the legal title
could be given by Bel and by Bel only." (Babylonian and Assyrian Life, p.36) Is it extravagant
to suggest that this ceremony may have commemorated an unholy compact between Cain and
the Devil - the exiled man and the disgraced spirit? A Jewish tradition describes how Satan put
the thought of murder into Cain's mind; may we not conclude that in the same way Cain was
inspired to establish idolatry? The drawing given here was thought by George Smith to represent
"Bel encountering the Dragon," (**1) but my impression is that in it we see Cain, i.e. Sargon,
"taking the hand of Bel." (See illustration facing p.60)

(**1) Chaldean Genesis, p.95

Neither in Hebrew nor Babylonian literature are Bel and the Dragon represented as antagonists.
They are obviously, on the contrary, different forms of the same god and there is no authority,
therefore, for concluding that this drawing represents a fight between the two. It is even possible
that the word Dragon came from Dagon which, according to Professor Jastrow, was only another
name for Bel. (**1) The drawing may, of course, represent the fight between the Sun-god
Marduk and Tiamat (a favourite subject with Babylonian artists), in which case we may still see
in it a portrait of Cain, under the mythological guise of Marduk or Merodach. (See illustration
facing.) The Bible teaching about the Devil is clear and decisive; he is mentioned at least fifty
times in the New Testament, and yet there is now a marked reluctance to believe in his existence
even among the clergy, one of whom writes in the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

"The teaching of Jesus even in this matter may be accounted for as either an accommodation to
the views of those with whom he was dealing, or more probably as a proof of the limitation of
knowledge which was a necessary condition of the Incarnation." (Ed. XI, The Devil) The
unwarranted assurance of the last lines needs no comment, but it may well be asked how any
modern teacher would like to be accused of accommodating his views to those of his pupils?

(**1) M. Jastrow, Babylonian and Assyrian Religions, p.154. And Professor
Sayce says: "In W. A. I. (Western Asiatic Inscriptions) III, 68,21, Dagon is
identified as Mul-lil." (Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p.1888)

XXVII. THE CHILDREN OF BEL

Startling possibilities are suggested by the fact that Sargon is said to have reigned over the
"children of Bel" (**1) and the "realm of Enlil," (**2) and that his subjects the "blackheads"
were entrusted to him by Akki (another name for the Devil). A problem faces us which we
cannot hope to solve - why were these people thus stigmatized as belonging to the Devil? All
that is plain to us is that, according to the Bible and the Babylonian inscriptions two non-Adamic
races existed in the beginning of history. The people who Cain feared might kill him, and among
whom he finally built a city were evidently the "blackheads" over whom Sargon ruled, and who
must have existed before Adam, while the other race of evil fame which trod the earth in Cain's
lifetime is shown by both the Bible and Babylonian monuments to have been half human - half
spirit. These people are called in the Bible the Nephilim, Rephaim, or Fallen Ones, and are said
to have been the children of the fallen angels who took as wives the daughter of men.

( Page 47 )

As Professor King points out, a parallel is provided in the Babylonian inscriptions:

"to the circumstances preceding the birth of the Nephilim at the beginning of the sixth chapter
of Genesis, for in them also great prowess or distinction is ascribed to the progeny of human and
divine unions. According to the traditions the records embody, the Sumerians looked back to a
time when gods lived upon the earth with men... we read of two Sumerian heroes, also rulers of
cities who were divine on the father's or mother's side but not on both." (Legends of Babylon and
Egypt, p.39)

(**1) The First Bible. Conder. See ante p.54
(**2) Sumer and Akkad. L. King, p.242

The inscriptions describe this pre-historic race as half-man and half-animal. From the Cutha
Tablet of Creation come the words: "Men with the bodies of birds of the desert, human beings
with the faces of ravens, these the great gods created, and in the earth the gods created for them
a dwelling. Tiamat gave unto them strength, their life the mistress of the gods raised... In the first
days the evil gods, the angels who were in rebellion, who in the lower part of heaven had been
created, they caused their evil work devising with wicked heads ruling to the river. There were
seven of them. The first was... the second was a great animal... the third was a leopard... the
fourth was a serpent... the fifth was a terrible... the sixth was a striker which to god and king did
not submit, the seventh was the messenger of the evil wind, etc." (Chaldean Genesis, pp.
103-107) Rigmarole through all this is, one feels that in it grim truths are hinted at, and that the
Babylonian scribes knew more about that hybrid race than we learn from the Bible. In Deut. iii,
II, where Og, the king of Bashan, is said to be "of the remnant of the giants", the Hebrew word
translated giants is "rapha" or "Raphaim," (**1) and really means a sort of monster, a "fearful
one," not a gigantic man like Nimrod, who is described in the Hebrew as a "gibbor," which
means giant. This may explain the fact that the Israelites who seem to have easily exterminated
those people in the end, were terrified of them at first. The existence of these races, witnessed to
by both the Bible and the Babylonian writings, is apparently ignored by scientists. Yet may it not
account for the perplexing bones found from time to time in different parts of the world? May
we not ascribe to those races the Pithecanthropus Erectus, the Man of Heidelberg, the Neander-
thal Man, the Negroid of Grimaldi, the Galley Hill Man, the Lemur-monkey Man, etc. - the
fearsome ancestors with whom some anthropologists have been ready to saddle themselves and
us? It is reassuring to think that the gorilla-like "Taung's skull," claimed as the missing link
between man and the ape family by Professor Haeckel, need have had no connection with
Adam's race since it may be a relic of that half-human race.

(**1) Or "Nephilim." See p.105.

While Professor Sayce thinks that the people called "Children of Bel" and "the blackheads" in
inscriptions were probably Negroid, (**1) other authorities, on the strength of certain drawings
upon the monuments, believe them to have been of a very peculiar type, white people perhaps,
but certainly abnormal. These peculiar people are supposed to have been the Sumerians, who,
according to the Sumerian School, invented the art of writing. The above was described in an
illustrated paper as "the men whose supreme gift to Babylonia was the art of writing." (The
Sphere, October 11th, 1924) (See facing page 102) To my mind, drawings like the above are the
product of the priests' frivolity, malignity or inanity, and in keeping with the "mongrel dialect"
of the inscriptions and the contradictory character and mocking tone of their contents. According
to Professor King, the earliest Babylonian monuments show both this degraded type of man
which he calls Sumerian and a superior type which he calls Semitic. The former are, to my mind,
mere caricatures of human beings, but the latter, in spite of the mock archaic style of the work,
are evidently Adamites and are distinctly like Europeans.

Professor King writes:

( Page 48 )

"Excavations have not contributed to the solution of the problems as to the period at
which Sumerians and Semites first came in contact, or which race was first in possession
of the land." (Sumer and Akkad, p.40) In view of this admission it seems strange that he
should have ventured to place a formidable array of Sumerian kings before the so called
Semitic dynasty of Sargon. The fact that according to him some of those kings are credit-
ed in inscriptions with the same achievements as Sargon (**2) supports my theory that
they were entirely fictitious, and that much of the priests' information is false.

(**1) See above, p.15
(**2) See Appendix D.

PG 104

XXVIII. SUGGESTIVE NAMES IN INSCRIPTIONS

In the mythological inscriptions we find two kinds of spirits who, I believe, represent re-
spectively Cain's race and the pre-Adamites. Since the name Annunaki undoubtedly con-
nects one kind of spirits with Anu (Adam), who is called the king of the Annunaki, the
other name Igigi presumably stands for the pre-Adamites, Professor Jastrow says that
the priests appealed to the Annunaki as gods, and quotes the inscription: "He who fears
the Annunaki will lengthen his days." (Religion of Egypt and Assyria, p.389) Although, as
usual, the priests obscured the truth by sometimes representing the Annunaki as the "evil
spirits of the deep," as opposed to the "Igigi or spirits of heaven," it seems certain that
the Annunaki were the white race and the Igigi the black. The priests perhaps are nearer
the truth when they say that the gods: "magnifies their anger against the Igigi. They are
sent out by them to do service and are shown to be severe and cruel; not favorable to man
but hostile to him." (Religion of Egypt and Assyria, p.307) The gods, as Professor Meyer
points out, (**1) are always represented on the monuments as "Semites" (Adamites), so it
is clear that the Annunaki who are appealed to as gods were the white race; and as the
inscription given below says that Marduk, whom I regard as Cain's mythological repre-
sentative, was "great among the Igigi," I presume that they were the black heads or ne-
groes (**2) over whom Cain ruled.

(**1) Quoted by Professor King. Sumer and Akkad. p.49.
(**2) Merodach is called Asari, "Nourisher of the black-headed race." (Hibbert Lectures,
p.287)

PG 105

The inscription runs:

"When the supreme Anu king of the Annunaki, and Enlil, the Lord of Heaven and Earth,
who fixes the destiny of the land, had committed to Marduk the first born of the earth
(Ea) the rule of all mankind, making him great among the Igigi, etc." (M Jastrow, Reli-
gion in Babylonia and Assyria, p.35) There is, of course, the possibility that the Igigi were
the half-human race, but on the whole it seems more likely that they were the black heads
mentioned in Sargon's inscriptions, and the Niggilma of the following "Sumerian" ac-
count of the Creation. (**1) Professor King gives the translation and, of course, adds the
punctuation, the accuracy of which I take the liberty to questioning:
"When Anu, Enlil Enki and Ninkharsagga Created the Black headed (i.e. mankind), The
niggil (ma) of the earth they caused the earth to produce (?) The animals, the four-legged
creatures of the field, they artfully called into existence." (Legends of Babylon and Egypt,
p.56) My reading of the above passage would be - "When Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkhar-
sagga created the black-headed the niggilma of the earth, they cause the earth to produce
the animals, the four-legged creatures of the field they artfully called into existence," ac-

( Page 49 )

cording to which "the black-headed" and "the niggilma" mean the same thing, and represent, in
my opinion, the pre-Adamites. We may reasonably conjecture that the word Igigi, especially if
identified with the black-headed Niggilma, may contain the root of the word Niger (black), Ne-
gro or Nigger.

(**1) George Smith says Sargon ruled the people of "the black-face." (Chaldean
Genesis, p.82)

XXIX. CAIN UNDER ANOTHER NAME

The following legend is, to my mind, a link between Babylonia and ancient Rome, and a clue to
the problem of the priest-kings of Nemi, the theme of Sir James Frazer's work The Golden
Bough. This story forms part of the Legends of Izdubar (otherwise called Gilgames or Gil-
gamesh), which are thought to have been written about the time of Khammurabi (2000 B.C.).
(**1) In this story Abel is referred to, according to Professor Sayce, under two different names
- Tammuz and Taballu; Eve, in my opinion, is represented by Ishtar, and Cain by the gardener
Isullanu, of whom Professor Sayce writes: "Isullanu the gardener of Anu is probably the mystic
prototype of the historical Sargon of Akkad whom later legend turned into a gardener beloved
by the goddess Ishtar." (Hibbert Legends, p.250)

It is strange that Professor Sayce connects Isullanu with Sargon and not with Cain, especially as
the probability of Cain's presence in Babylonia is admitted by him, for the fact that the shepherd
Taballu is, according to him, the double of Abel and that Ishtar is, as we have seen, the
mythological form of Eve, seems to make that connection so evident. The fact, too, that Isullanu
calls Ishtar "Mother," and is said to be the gardener of Ishtar's father (as Anu, otherwise Adam,
is sometimes called in the inscriptions) is additional proof that Isullanu represents Cain. It is also
suggestive that, as the Professor tells us, the name Isullanu meant "he who makes green the living
things," which harmonizes with the description of Cain in the Bible - a tiller of the ground. That
the Professor identifies Isullanu with Sargon, however, suits my purpose even better, since it
offers another reason for identifying Sargon with Cain.

(**1) Chaldean Genesis p.168

In this curious legend (a good example of the priests' nonsense) the goddess Ishtar is taunted by
the hero Izdubar with fickleness and cruelty, and that this libels our first mother's character may
be gathered from the excellent qualities attributed to her at other times, and also when she is
represented as the god Ea, who is described as a benevolent deity, teaching the art of healing and
culture to mankind. (**1) Professor Sayce notices the contradictory character given to Ishtar.

He writes:

"But who was the goddess whom one legend made the faithful wife enduring even death for her
husband's sake, while another regarded her as the most faithless and cruel of coquettes?"
(Hibbert Legends, p.250)

THE LEGEND RUNS:

1. For the favor of Gisdhubar the princess Ishtar lifted the eyes;
2. (Look up), Gisdhubar, and be thou my bridegroom!
3. I am thy vine, thou art its bond;
4. Be thou my husband and I will be thy wife.
5. I will give thee a chariot of crystal and gold, (etc.)
17. (Gisdhubar) opened his mouth and speaks,
18. (he says thus) to the princess Ishtar:
19. (I will leave) to thyself thy possession

( Page 50 )

20. (in thy realm are) corpses and corruption (?)
21. .... disease and famine.
30. The palace is the destroyer of heroes
31. A deceitful (?) mouth are its hidden recesses
37. Never may I be (thy) bridegroom for ever.
38. Never may a god make thee joyous.
41. To Tammuz the bridegroom (of thy youth) thou didst look;
42. year after year with weeping didst thou cling to him.
43. Alala, the eagle, also didst thou love;
44. Thou didst strike him and break his wings;
45. he remained in the forest; he begged for his wings.
46. Thou didst love, too, a lion perfect in might;
47. seven by seven didst thou tear out his teeth, seven by seven
48. And thou didst love a horse glorious in battle;
53. Thou didst love also the shepherd Taballu,
54. who continually poured out for thee the smoke (of sacrifice)
56. thou didst bring him forth and into a hyena didst change him;
58. and his own dogs tore his wounds.
59. Moreover, thou didst love Isullanu the gardener of thy father,
60. who was ever raising for thee costly trees.
61. Every day had he made bright thy dish.
62. Thou didst take from him (his eye) and didst mock him;
63. O my Isullanu, come, let us eat thine abundant store,
64. and bring out thy hand and dismiss all fear of us.
65. Isullanu says to thee:
66. As for me, what dost thou ask of me?
67. O my mother, thou cookest not (and) I eat not;
68. the food I have eaten are garlands and girdles;
69. the prison of the hurricane is (thy) hidden recess.
70. Thou didst listen and (didst impose) punishment;
71. thou didst strike him; to bondage thou didst (assign him);
72. and thou madest him sit in the midst of (a tomb?)." (Hibbert Legends, p.246)

(**1) Ea is said to be merciful, compassionate, wise, sentient and pure. (Hibbert
Legends, 1887, p. 140-141) Also "the author of knowledge and intelligence." (Ditto,
p.118)

My proposition that in this Babylonian legend there lies a clue to the problem of the Grove of
Nemi can hardly be regarded as far-fetched, considering that the Greek and Roman mythologies
were derived from the Babylonians. (**1) We have seen that Professor Sayce regards the
gardener Isullanu as representing Sargon, which justifies us in regarding him as Cain; we have
also seen that the Professor identifies Tammuz with Abel, and the fact that in the above legend
he regards Tammuz and Taballu as one and the same (**2) justifies us in looking for a double
character in the Roman legend as well. This we find in the goddess Diana [admittedly a form of
Ishtar (**3)] and the water-nymph Egeria who is shown by her attributes to be another form of
Ishtar. That both these characters represent Eve seems obvious, for Verbius, the young hero of
the Grove is connected by Sir James Frazer with Tammuz and therefore with Abel. Having
satisfied ourselves therefore that Cain's mother and brother are represented in both the Babylo-
nian and Roman legends, it seems natural to look for Cain himself; and since Professor Sayce
identifies the gardener Isullanu in the Babylonian legend with Sargon it seems evident that the
murderer priest king of the Roman legend represents Cain.

(**1) "The Greeks, borrowing most of their astronomical knowledge from the
Babylonians, held similar myths and ideas... The Romans adopted the Greek ideas."
(Ency. Brit., Ed. II, Canis Major.)

( Page 51 )

(**2) See p.82
(**3) See Appendix FA.

This possibility increases the interest of the legend, about which Sir James Frazer writes: "Who
does not know Turner's picture of the Golden Bough? The little woodland lake of Nemi - 'Diana's
Mirror' as it was called by the ancients, that calm water lapped in a green hollow of the Alban
Hills... in antiquity this sylvan landscape was the scene of a strange and recurring tragedy... dark
crimes were perpetrated there under the mask of religion."

The same writer quotes Macaulay's verse:

"The still glassy lake that sleeps
Beneath Areca's trees -
These trees in whose dim shadow
The ghastly priest doth reign
The priest who slew the slayer
And shall himself be slain."

Why, Sir James Frazer asks, had the priest of Nemi to slay his predecessor? And why, before
doing so, had he to pluck the branch of a certain tree which the public opinion of the ancients
identified with the Golden Bough? The answer I venture to give is: Because Cain murdered Abel,
whose sacrificial offering had been preferred to his own, and because the sacred tree, round
which the priest prowled incessantly, commemorated the tree of the Garden of Eden which had
so largely influenced the destiny of Adam's family. To anyone who accepts my arguments and
is willing to regard the priest-king of Nemi as derived from Cain, the following account of a
double-headed bust (**1) found at Nemi and believed to represent the priest-king will be of
interest. Sir James Frazer suggests that the older head may represent the actual priest-king and
the younger head the murderer who was to kill him and take his place. My own suggestion is that
the older head represents Cain - the murderer priest-king - while in the younger head I see his
brother Abel. Sir James Frazer, describing the bust says:

"The type of face is similar in both heads but there are marked differences between them - for
while the one is young and beardless with shut lips and a steadfast gaze, the other is a man of
middle life with a long and matted beard, wrinkled brows, a wild and anxious look in his eyes
and an open grinning mouth, but perhaps the most singular thing about the two heads is the
leaves with scalloped edges which are plastered, so to say, on the necks of both busts and
apparently also under the eyes of the younger figure. The leaves have been interpreted as oak
leaves and the moustache of the older figure clearly resembles an oak leaf. All this may contain
in germ the solution of the problem of the king of the wood worship." (The Golden Bough.) The
likeness between the two faces of the bust supports my theory that they represent the brothers
Cain and Abel, while the difference of age and expression accords with the story told about them
in Genesis; and more support for my theory may perhaps be found in the "open grinning mouth"
of the older face, which is clearly one-sided and , therefore, suggestive of a muscular contortion
known to science as "the Cynic spasm," and described as "a convulsive spasm of the muscles of
one side of the face, distorting the mouth, nose, etc. into the appearance of a grin." (**2) To one
who has decided upon grounds already stated that the face of the murderer-king in the Roman
bust represents Cain it naturally seems more than a coincidence that the muscular contortion,
with which he is portrayed, has been given a name containing the root of the word Cain and
apparently associated in other ways as well with Cain. Philologists agree that the word "Cynics"
(Kynikoi) given to certain Greek philosophers in the first century A.D. came from the Greek
word for dog (Kuon; Strong's G2965 koo'-ohn) and that those philosophers were so-called
because they were "prone to fall back into animalism pure and simple," (**3) and are said to
"have outraged the dictates of common decency," (**4) but the idea that the Greek word for dog
may have been derived from the name of Cain is entirely my own and since I cannot claim to be
one of Cowper's "learned philologists who chase A panting syllable through time and space," my

( Page 52 )

reasons for so bold a suggestion must be stated. Philologically speaking it is a reasonable
suggestion, for the word kuon (dog) is quite as like the word Cain as is the second syllable of
Sargon's name which is identified with "Cain"; (**5) and historically speaking a connection
between the words Cain, Cynic and dog seems probable for, while the Epistle of Jude indicates
that the evil character of Cain's later life was known to the Apostles, St. Paul and St. John head
their lists of evildoers with the word "dogs," which one modern translator of the Bible has
changed into "Cynics," (**6) a more convincing rendering that "dogs", for obviously men and
not animals are referred to. Cain's wickedness, which was thus vividly remembered in Palestine
in the Apostles' time, can scarcely have been lost

sight of in Babylonia if he was Sargon of Akkad, although, perhaps, his great achievements
overshadowed it and the priests may have concealed it in their Mysteries. The truth however was
flimsily disguised in Babylonia, and it seems possible that Sargon's true character was sufficient-
ly recognized there to have caused his name to be given to dogs which were abominated in the
ancient East: "In the Old and New Testaments the dog is spoken of almost with abhorrence; it
ranked amongst the unclean beasts; traffic in it was considered as an abomination." (Ency. Brit.,
Ed. XI, Dogs.) The Cynics of Greece were evidently proud of their opprobrious title for they
adopted a dog as their emblem or badge. (**7) Perhaps they knew that dogs originally took the
name Kuon from Cain, and gloried in the fact, for in the second century A.D. another sect of
philosophers arose who announced their preference for Cain over Abel, and were called Cainites
(not Kenites): "They believed that Cain derived his existence from the superior power and Abel
from the inferior power." (Ency. Brit., Ex. XI, Cain) Although to some minds the idea may seem
fantastic, these considerations suffice to convince me that a connection exists between the names
Cain and Sargon, Kuon, the Greek word for dog, and the Kynikoi or Cynics of Greece; and that
through the sculptured grin and the "Cynic spasm," the "King of the Wood" may be identified
with Cain. Was Canis the Dog-star called after Cain?

Homer wrote of it:

"Whose breath Taints the red air with fevers, plagues, and death." (**9)

(**1) See Frontispiece.
(**2) Ency. Brit, Ed. II, Cynics
(**3) Ditto
(**4) See p.31
(**5) Ferrar Fenton, Bible in Modern English.
(**6) See p.31
(**7) Ferrar Fenton, Bible in Modern English.
(**8) "It is noticeable that the Cynics agreed in taking a dog as their common
badge or symbol." (Ency. Brit., Ed. XI, Cynics)
(**9) It was included in the Babylonian stellar system. (Ency. Brit., Ed. Canis)
Merodach, whom we have identified with Cain, is represented as accompanied by
four dogs, Uccumu "the despoiler", Acculu "the devourer," Icsuda "the capturer",
and Iltebu the "carrier-away." (The Chaldean Genesis, 1880, p.190)

I. IN THE GREY DAWN OF HISTORY

Happily Cain's followers, like most conspirators, bungled badly and let the truth come down to
us through their elaborate barrier of lies. The overwhelming proof that the Babylonians knew of
God's existence and willfully disguised that fact is in our possession. Although, as we have seen,
the mythological writings constantly allude to the personages mentioned in the first chapters of
Genesis, no allusion is made in them to the Creator, the knowledge of Whom has come down to
us through the Hebrew race. According to the Babylonian priests, several gods took part in the
creation of the world, and the gods Anu, Ea and Bel at first, and in later times Shamas, Ishtar and
Sin ruled the heavens, earth, sea and "the affairs of men." No room is left in the Babylonian

( Page 53 )

pantheon for a Supreme Being. Three or four tablets have been found, however, smothered as it
were among thousands of polytheistic inscriptions, which clearly show that the knowledge of
God existed in Babylonia before the year 2200 B.C., when there is said to have been a "literary
revival" during which older writings and traditions were reproduced. These monotheistic writ-
ings may, therefore, have existed in Sargon's time, and may have owed their origin to him. In
spite of the fact that many generations of priests have handled these inscriptions, their style is
clear and lucid in comparison with all the mythological writings; and this is another proof that
the archaic character of the latter was affected. These inscriptions telling about One Supreme
Being, the rebellious angels and the Fall of Adam, and which are known to be among the oldest
Babylonian writings, prove the soundness of Dr. Kittel's theory that a common source existed
for the Bible and the Babylonian inscriptions, and that that source was a monotheistic one; to use
his words "very ancient knowledge imparted by God to man." Other scholars have held the
opinion that the original source of both the Bible and Babylonian writings was polytheistic, and
credit the Israelitish prophets with the change to monotheism. They ignore the possibility that
instead of the Hebrews transforming the polytheistic religion of the Babylonians, the Babyloni-
ans may have corrupted an original monotheistic religion preserved by the Hebrews. Surely,
considering the tendency of the human race to adopt paganism, it is more reasonable to conclude
that One God was exchanged for many gods than that many gods were merged into One.
Professor Delitzsch concluded that the monotheistic religion belonged to Sargon's race
(according to him the North Semitic race) and that the polytheistic religion belonged to the
inferior race of Babylonia. He writes: "These North Semitic tribes... thought of and worshipped
God as a single spiritual being, and were in possession of religious ideas which differed from the
indigenous polytheistic mode of thought in Babylonia." (Laws of Moses. The Code of Khammu-
rabi, p.27, S. A. Cooke) Professor Sayce, on the contrary, has concluded that the monotheistic
religion belonged to the "Sumerians." He says: "In the pre-Semitic days of Chaldea a monothe-
istic school had flourished... But this school died out." and suggests that the polytheistic religion
was imported by the so-called Semitic race. "The theology of Babylonia as it is known to us is
thus an artificial product. It combines two wholly different forms of faith and religious concep-
tion. One of these was overlaid by the other at a very early period in the history of the people...
and the theological beliefs of Sumer received a Semitic interpretation." (Religions of Egypt and
Babylonia.)

The Professor, in an evident attempt to account for the sure signs that the conception of a
Supreme God once existed in Babylonia, although He was not worshipped there, conjectures as
follows: "The higher minds of the nation struggled now and again towards the conception of One
Supreme God and of a purer form of faith, but the dead weight of polytheistic beliefs and
practices prevented them from ever really reaching it." (Assyria, its Princes, etc., p.85) Although
these authorities differ as to which race possessed the knowledge of One God and as to which
form of religion was the earlier in Babylonia, their admissions that that knowledge existed there
side by side with the worship of other gods support my claim that Cain introduced that
knowledge, and used it as the basis of idolatry by ascribing Divine attributes to the gods of his
own invention.

II. CAIN'S PENITENTIAL HYMN

One of the monotheistic inscriptions is called "the penitential hymn," and the words of it are such
as might have been uttered by Cain himself. Professor Sayce translates it thus: "The transgres-
sion I have committed I knew not. The sin that I sinned I knew not. The forbidden thing did I
trample on. My Lord in the wrath of his heart has overpowered me. God who knew (though I
knew not) hath pierced me... I lay on the ground and no man seized me by the hand. I wept and
my palms none took. I cried aloud and there was none that could hear me. I am in darkness and
trouble. I lifted not myself up. To my God I referred my (distress). My prayer I addressed... How
long O my God shall I suffer? How long O my God who knewest (though) I knew not shall thy
heart be wrath?" (Schweich Lectures, 1908, p.23) This prayer was discovered in the ruins of
Assur-bani-pal's palace; the priests of that kings reign (seventh century B.C.) had presumably

( Page 54 )

copied it from older tablets. Professor King tells us that "a detailed study of these inscriptions
proves" that all the writings in the ruins of that palace were copies of more ancient ones. At the
time the "penitential hymn" was finally copied the gods of Babylonia were legion. According to
an inscription of King Assur-bani-pal, there were 6,500 of them in his land, yet the words of this
prayer are those of a believer in One God. Do they express Cain's agony of mind before, under
the Devil's influence, he hardened his heart and invented his plan of revenge? In the reiterated
words "who knew though I knew not" we may find a sign of the coming resentment and rebellion.

Many "penitential hymns" have been discovered but, so far as I know, this is the only copy free
from paganism. Professor Sayce gives what is obviously another version of the hymn in which
these lines occur: "May god be appeased again, for I knew not that I sinned. May Ishtar, my
mother, be appeased again, for I knew not that I sinned, God knoweth that I knew not: may he
be appeased. Ishtar, my mother, knoweth that I knew not: may she be appeased. May the heart
of my God be appeased. May God and Ishtar, my mother, be appeased. (etc.)...God, in the
strength of his heart, has taken me. Ishtar, my mother, has seized upon me, and put me to grief,
(etc.)." The priests' fashion of mythologizing is well exemplified by this (probably later) version
of the "penitential hymn." The fact that the penitent calls Ishtar (Eve) "mother," and was
evidently under her displeasure, supports my theory that the hymn was originally inspired by
words which Cain had once uttered, or might have been supposed to have uttered. Commenting
upon this version of the hymn, Professor Sayce writes:

"A rubric is attached to this verse, stating that it is to be repeated ten times, and at the end of the
whole psalm is the further rubric: 'For the tearful supplication of the heart let the glorious name
of every god be invoked sixty-five times, and then the heart shall have peace'." (Assyria: its
Princes, Priests, etc. p.73) (**1) A second monotheistic inscription undoubtedly refers to the fall
of the rebellious angels to whose existence both the Old and New Testaments witness.

The translator says:

"The first four lines are broken. They related, no doubt, that a festival of praise and thanksgiving
was being held in heaven, when this rebellion took place."

(**1) The rubric is evidently later priests' directions.

The inscription runs:

"The Divine Being spoke three times, the commencement of a psalm.
6. The god of holy songs, Lord of religion and worship
7. seated a thousand singers and musicians; and established a choral band
8. who to his hymn were to respond in multitudes.......
9. With a loud cry of contempt they broke up his holy song
10. spoiling ,confusing, confounding, his hymn of praise.
11. The god of a bright crown with a wish to summon his adherents
12. sounded a trumpet blast which would wake the dead,
13. Which to those rebel angels prohibited return
14. he stopped their service, and sent them to the gods who were his enemies
15. In their room he created mankind.
16. The first who received life, dwelt along with him.
17. May he give them strength, never to neglect his word,
18. Following the serpent's voice, whom his hands had made."
(Records of the Past, Vol 7, p.127)

The translator remarks that the medieval church also held the opinion that mankind was created
to fill up the void in creation caused by the rebellion of ungrateful angels. With regard to the
different titles given to the Supreme Being, the translator says that the Assyrian scribe:

( Page 55 )

"annotates in the margin that the same god is meant throughout, under all these different
epithets." One wonders what more the priestly scribe could have explained if he had chosen. That
he knew all that we learn from the first chapters of Genesis can scarcely be doubted. Another
monotheistic inscription is called by its translator (Professor Chiera of Pennsylvania) "God's
words to Adam." (**1) The Professor points out that God's speech apparently ends in the
blessing on man, which supports his interpretation of the story that Adam was driven from Eden
to prevent him obtaining food which might make him immortal.

The inscription runs:

"Thy humanity, thy body has not been freed. For mankind words of wisdom are not. Finish thy
weeping. From my presence go to the desert. As an outcast thou shalt not return to my field for
working it... As an hunted one thou shalt not return. Go, work the land, raise food for eating.
Humanity thou shalt know abundance." (Daily Express, October 26th, 1922, the New York
Correspondent.) This inscription is attributed by the Professor to about the year 2100 B.C. It was
found in the ruins of the temple at Nippur, where the University of Pennsylvania Expedition has
excavated several tablets. The contrast between these dignified words and the Babylonian
drawing given below speaks for itself. Professor Waddell from whose work the drawing is
reproduced calls it "The Trial of Adam the son of God," and remarks that the "accuser is the
Moon-god of Darkness and Death." (**2) (See illustration facing) The inconsistency of address-
ing such words as the following to an insignificant local form of the goddess Ishtar has impressed
Professor Sayce, who says: "The old bilingual hymn to the moon-god Nannar of Ur is more
suitable for a supreme Baal than for a local moon-god."

The words of this hymn are:

"Father, long suffering and full of forgiveness, whose hands upholds the life of all mankind,
Lord, thy divinity, like the far off heaven, fills the wide sea with fear... First-born, omnipotent,
whose heart is immensity and there is none who shall discern it... Lord the ordainer of the laws
of heaven and earth, whose command may not be (broken)... In heaven, who is supreme? Thou
alone, thou art supreme! As for thee, thy will is made known on earth, and the spirits below kiss
the ground. As for thee, thy will is blown on high like the wind: the stall and the fold are
quickened. As for thee, thy will is done on the earth, and the herb grows green." (Gifford
Lectures, p.320) What explanation can be offered for the existence in a pagan land of words so
reminiscent of the Hebrew sacred writings, except that the knowledge of God had once existed
there; and how otherwise can we explain the fact that: "The conception of a divine messenger or
angel who carried the orders of the higher god from heaven to earth and interpreted his will to
men, goes back to an early period in the history of Babylonian religion, the Sukkal or angel plays
an important part in Babylonian theology." (Religion of the Babylonians, Sayce, p.361) Modern
churchmen who prefer to ascribe the teaching of "those fundamental beliefs about God and about
man on which the Christian religion reposes" to the period of the later prophets, (**3) can
scarcely be aware of these Babylonian writings which prove that an exalted conception of God
had reached Babylonia before 2000 B.C. Surely this is the discovery which Professor Kittel
foresaw would refute the attacks made upon the historical truth of the first chapters of Genesis.

(**1) The word Adam has been "found used as a proper name in tablets from
Tello of the age of Sargon of Akkad." (Archaeology of the Inscriptions, p.91,
Sayce.)
(**2) Phoenician Origin of the Britons, pp. 239-253.
(**3) Doctrine of the Infallible Book, Canon Gore, p.14

III. DID CAIN FOUND THE BABYLONIAN LAWS?

The theory that Cain brought the knowledge of God and of His laws into Babylonia offers, I
contend, the best explanation of the resemblance between the laws of Moses and the Babylonian

( Page 56 )

Code called after King Khammurabi (circa 1900 B.C.), who is thought to have been Abraham's
contemporary (Amraphael); and this theory is supported by Babylonian inscriptions in which
Sargon is called "the deviser of constituted law," "the deviser of prosperity" or "the very wise."
(**1) Because of certain resemblances between these Hebrew and Babylonian laws it has been
conjectured that the Ten Commandments were based upon the Babylonian Code, of which one
writer says: "This is the oldest (known) code in the world... it is perhaps a thousand years older
than Moses, the laws themselves must have been in operation long before their codification and
promulgation by Khammurabi. And already the question of the relationship between the Mosaic
legislation and that of this great oriental ruler and the possible dependence in parts at least of the
former upon the latter, have been much discussed, and have given rise to a considerable
literature." (One Vol. Bible Commentary, p.35) Curiously enough, while the dependence of the
Mosaic law upon the Babylonian is often suggested, the possibility that both may be more or less
altered copies of the same original seems to be overlooked, although there is good reason to
believe that this was the case.

(**1) Hibbert Lectures, p.28, Sayce

One writer says:

"There is not the slightest reason to suppose that Khammurabi introduced a series of innovations
or novelties; his laws have had a lengthy history behind them, and prove themselves to be based
upon ancient customs. Israelite tradition, in like manner, presupposes laws before Moses, and the
two systems of legislation have this in common therefore, that they may claim to be not original
productions but authoritative promulgations." (The Laws of Moses and Khammurabi, S. A.
Cooke, p.42) Since therefore, "Israelite tradition" is said to "presuppose the existence of laws
before Moses," (**1) it may be supposed that certain rules of conduct were laid down in the
beginning for Adam and his descendants, and that a solemn reassertion of those Divine rules was
made necessary by the falling away of the Israelites during their stay in Egypt. It is also
reasonable to suppose that since the Babylonian laws are believed to have been founded upon
much older ones, Cain, who would naturally have learnt the rules given to Adam, may have
founded those laws upon them.

Another writer says:

"Fragments of law exist which antedate Khammurabi's age, which reveal an organized life not
inferior in its cultural developments to that attested by his code. The earlier period has the merit
of imitated and not infrequently imitated badly... we must not forget that previous to Khammu-
rabi there existed a high culture and social developments underestimated." (Religions of Egypt
and Babylonia, Hugo Winckler.) This admission that Khammurabi's laws were a bad imitation
of older laws, agrees with my theory that the Divine rules given to Adam were to a certain extent
the pattern upon which Cain founded his Babylonian laws. The fact that the greatest command-
ments - those against idolatry and murder are omitted in the Babylonian code while sorcery and
witchcraft are encouraged certainly seems to betray his editorship.

(**1) See footnote p.12)

One inscription suggests that Cain gloried in his perversion of the Divine laws and in the part
which the Devil had played in that perversion; for, as Sargon, he is made to say that he "had
extended his protection over the city of Haran, and according to the ordinance of Anu and Dagon
(**1) had written down their laws." (**2) The following monotheistic clause in the otherwise
polytheistic code is illuminating; it might almost be thought to belong to the Book of Exodus:
"If in a sheepfold a stroke of God has taken place or a lion has killed, the shepherd shall purge
himself before God and the accident to the fold the owner of the fold shall fact it." (One Vol.
Bible Commentary, p.35) This obvious reference to God calls for more attention than it has
received, considering that Khammurabi's Code begins with what might be called a dedication to

( Page 57 )

the gods Anu, Ea, Bel and Marduk. Apart from a few more references of the same kind the code
is entirely pagan, and deals first with sorcery which was evidently encouraged by the priest
lawyers of Babylonia. We read: "If a man weave a spell and put a ban upon a man and has not
justified himself, he shall be put to death... If a man put a spell upon a man and has not justified
himself, he upon whom the spell is laid.. shall plunge into the holy river, and if the river
overcome him he who wove the spell shall take his house. If the holy river makes that man to be
innocent and has saved him he who laid the spell upon him shall be put to death." (One Vol. Bible
Commentary, p.35) Both the resemblances and differences between the Babylonian and Mosaic
laws can be accounted for if we accept the theory that all those laws were founded upon the
original rules of conduct given to Adam, that they were taken by Cain into Babylonia and there
remodeled to suit his purposes, while on the other hand they were merely reasserted through
Moses to the Israelites in the wilderness.

(**1) See p.100. Dagon, another name for Bel the Devil.
(**2) Hibbert Lectures, p.188. Merodach, with whom I connect Sargon, is called
"the director of the laws of Anu, Bel (Mul-lol) and Ea." (Hibbert Lectures, p.284,
1887)

IV. THE LEAVEN OF MALICE AND WICKEDNESS

That Cain, the first murderer and idolater, should have suppressed the two greatest command-
ments is only what we should expect, and we need not hesitate to ascribe to him the worst
practices connected with the pagan religions of all times; for if Cain was, as I have tried to show,
the human original of the Babylonian Sun-god whose followers spread a high grade of civiliza-
tion all over the ancient world, (**1) the nature of the religion which accompanied that
civilization witnesses against him. Wherever the "Children of the Sun" raised their pyramids and
dolmens, their stately palaces and temples, and carried on their irrigation and mining operations,
their stone and metal works, they seem to have introduced the grossest superstitions, as well as
human sacrifice and cannibalism, all of which, as we have seen, can be traced back to Sargon.
(**2) The eating of human flesh was practiced in ancient Babylonia (**3) and it is reasonable to
suppose that Sargon, the great high priest of Enlil (the Devil) should have instituted that custom.
Who but Cain, who was "of that evil one," could have invented it? Next to the worship of false
gods what more diabolical insult could be offered to the Almighty than the brutalization of His
noblest creation Man by the eating of human flesh? The merciless nature of the Babylonian laws
is commented upon by one writer who says: "The familiar Semitic conceptions of the sacredness
of blood whether human or animal must have long been forgotten by the Babylonians whose
code is characterized by the frequent application of the death penalty." (The Laws of Moses and
Khammurabi, p.50, S.A. Cooke.) Replacing the word Semitic by Adamite this opinion agrees
with my own that the original rules given to Adam were perverted in Babylonia by Cain under
the Devil's influence. Cannibalism, like idolatry, is usually supposed to have been invented by
savage and primitive tribes, but this opinion seems to be discounted by the fact that it was
connected from the first with ritual and ceremonies. (**4) The reason why it is not legislated
against in the Laws of Moses is obviously because such a crime was unthinkable among the
Hebrews, (**5) while naturally it was not legislated against in the Code of Khammurabi because
it was practiced by the priests. The "ceremonial meals of Nintu of Kis," (**6) to which
mysterious references are made in the Code of Khammurabi, were in all probability cannibalistic
feasts such as those which horrified the first discoverers of Mexico; for the ancient civilization
of that country is attributed to the Children of the Sun and there are strong reasons to connect it
with that of Babylonia. (**7) One link between the ancient Babylonian civilization and the
Children of the Sun is that in the colonies founded by them the knowledge of an "All-father"
seems always to have existed side by side with the worship of grotesque deities, just as in
Babylonia the knowledge of God existed in the beginning of history, although creatures of man's
imagination were worshipped.

( Page 58 )

(**1) "Wherever it is possible to examine the ruling classes of the archaic
civilization, it is found that they were what are termed gods, that they had the
attributes of gods, and that they usually called themselves 'the Children of the
Sun'." (Children of the Sun, p.141, W.J. Perry)
(**2) See p.58 and see Appendixes E and H
(**3) See p. 58
(**4) "Most kinds of cannibalism are hedged round with ceremonial regulations,"
and "We are justified in referring all forms of endo-cannibalism to a ritual origin."
(Ency. Brit., Ed. II, Cannibalism.)
(**5) According to some commentators, the prophet Micah (iii,3) accuses the
Israelites of cannibalism, and it may well be that, influenced at one time by their
Canaanite neighbors, they adopted that practice along with other idolatrous
customs. Moloch and Chiun, the gods worshipped by the Canaanites (Amos
v,26), probably represented the Devil and Cain.
(**6) Nintu was Ishtar ('the Lady of the gods'). (Deluge Stories, p.63, L. King)
(**7) See Appendix D.

Even among the Bushmen of Australia, to which land Sir Arthur Keith tells us Asiatics
journeyed by sea many thousands of years ago, (**1) an "All-father" to whom a truly Divine
nature is ascribed is secretly honored, while public worship is given to a god represented by the
praying-mantis insect which, very suggestively, is called alternately Cagn or Ikkagan; (**2) and,
as already mentioned, when the tradition of the Sun-god reached the Pacific Islands his name had
reverted to "Kane." "Other evidence... suggests that the Children of the Sun originally ruled over
Tahiti... It is said that formerly some of the chiefs claimed descent from the great god Kane,
evidently a sun god." "The Iku-pau were direct descendants of 'Kane' the god, or Kunuhenua the
first man... Kane being a sun-god, the Iku-pau would therefore be of the Sun, and thus ancient
Hawaiian society falls into line with that of the archaic civilization in general." (The Children of
the Sun, pp.167-311, W.J. Perry, 1923) Explorers admit the probability that the archaic civiliza-
tions of America, Australia, India and Oceania came originally from either Babylonia, Egypt or
Northern Palestine; but how that civilization first came into existence, and the origin of its
mingled culture and barbarism must, I believe, remain a mystery unless the theory is accepted
that Cain was the human original of the Sun-god whose followers wandered into every clime,
carrying with them the culture of the ancient Babylonians and the leaven of malice and wicked-
ness as well.

(**1) Lecture at the Royal College of Surgeons, January 24th, 1925.
(**2) Ency. Brit., Ed II, Mythology. See Appendix D.

V. MORE ABOUT KING CAIN

Further information about Sargon of Akkad will naturally interest anyone who accepts my theory
that he was Cain. The close alliance between Sargon and the Devil, attested to by the Babylonian
inscriptions, agrees with what Josephus has to say about Cain's after life: "However he did not
accept of his punishment in order to amendment but to increase his wickedness; for he only
aimed to procure everything that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be
injurious to his neighbours." ... "The posterity of Cain became exceedingly wicked, everyone
successively dying one after another, more wicked than the former." (Antiquities of the Jews, II,
3.) What the inscriptions say about Sargon indicates that he could, by putting his marvellous
knowledge into practice, "procure everything that was for his own bodily pleasure," and also that
he constantly made war against his neighbours, the other branch of Adam's race. (**1) Babylonia
is known to have been exceedingly productive in ancient times on account of the elaborate
system of irrigation of which traces have been discovered; and, as we have seen, it was to
Merodach (Cain?) that that system was traced. Professor Leonard King, writing about the
luxuries of Sargon's period says: "Thus we read of the dispatch of gold to Akkad, or of herds of
oxen, or flocks of sheep, lambs and goats. In return we find that Akkad sent grain and dates

( Page 59 )

southward, and probably garments and woven stuffs; the importance of the first two exports is
indicated by the frequent occurrence of the expressions 'grain of Akkad' and 'dates of Akkad'
(**1) in the commercial texts." (Sumer and Akkad, p.237) Alluding to Sargon as Shar-gani-
sharri, the same writer describes his maritime activities; and since he ascribes the Babylonian
civilization to the Sumerians and not to Cain he naturally pictures Sargon profiting by the long
experience of Sumerian seamen in his naval expeditions, and prefers to think that Sargon
organized rather than inaugurated the system of communication by water known to have been
carried on in his reign:

(**1) See above pp. 25-144.

He writes:

"From the earliest periods we know that the rivers and canals of Babylonia were navigated, and
the Persian Gulf was a natural outlet for the trade of the Sumerian cities in the South. In
organizing a naval expedition for the conquest of the coast and the islands, Shar-gani- sharri
would have had native ships and sailors at his disposal, whose knowledge of the Gulf had been
acquired in the course of their regular trading... In the internal administration of his empire
Shar-gani-sharri appears to have inaugurated, or at any rate to have organized, a regular system
of communication between the principal cities and the capital." (Sumer and Akkad, p.235) But
putting aside the possibility that Sargon was Cain and was endowed with superhuman knowl-
edge it seems incredible that the great Sargon, as described upon the tablets, should have been
prompted in any way by the inferior race ("the black heads") over whom he ruled.

The Cambridge History says of Sargon that: "In his third year he invaded the west... He claims
to have subdued the whole of the western lands and to have crossed the western sea, that is the
Mediterranean, by which he may mean an occupation of Cyprus. From the 'land of the sea' he
caused booty to be brought over."

(**1) We have noticed that the Sun-god is called "lord of the date." P.83

The same writer says that although Assyriologists have been reluctant to believe in these
accounts of Sargon's voyages (and since they regard him as an ordinary human being, this is not
surprising) his conclusion is that: "It seems impossible to explain away the voyage of Sargon
across some part of the Mediterranean, and naturally Cyprus was his first objective. Moreover,
a stele of Sargon's son, Naram-Sin, has been found at Diarbekr." (Vol I, p.405)

Another writer says of Sargon:"He is also stated to have made successful expeditions to Syria
and Elam, and that with the conquered peoples of those countries he peopled Akkad, and built
there a magnificent palace and temple, and that on one occasion he was absent three years when
he advanced to the Mediterranean, and, like Sesotris, Hercules, etc., left there memorials of his
deeds, returning home with immense spoils." (Chaldea, p.205, Ragozin)

VI. WAS CAIN IN CRETE?

Although Professor King hesitated to believe all that the Babylonian inscriptions say about
Sargon's voyages, he shows that other authorities have arrived at startling conclusions upon the
subject: "Not content with leaving him (Sargon) in Cyprus, Professor Winckler has dreamed of
still further maritime expeditions on his part to Rhodes, Crete and even to the mainland of Greece
itself." (Sumer and Akkad, p.345)

Further, he admits that: "There are, however, certain features of Aegean culture which may be
traced to a Babylonian source. ... The houses in Fara, for instance, are supplied with a very
elaborate system of drainage, and drains and culverts have been found... at Nippur, at Surghul,
and at most early Sumerian sites where excavations have been carried out. These have been

( Page 60 )

compared with the system of drainage and sanitation at Knossos." (Sumer and Akkad, p.345) He
also says that "probably the clay tablet and stylus reached Crete from Babylonia." (**1)
Professor Sayce tells us that a hematite cylinder found in Cyprus is inscribed with the name of
Sargon's son, Naram-Sin, and that, "the divine title is prefixed to the royal name." (**2) In the
Cambridge History we read that Babylonian cylinders have been found in tombs in Cyprus
which are supposed to belong to the third millennium before Christ, (**3) and that:

(**1) Sumer and Akkad, p.345
(**2) Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p.278
(**3) Cambridge History, Vol I, p.143

"the omens of Sargon say definitely that he crossed the sea of the West." (Vol I,p.405) These
statements show that Professor Winckler's "dream" of Sargon's presence in Crete was not
unjustified; and the name of Khyan or Kian (**1) (Cain) upon an alabaster lid of a coffer
discovered at Knossos in Crete (**2) is yet another indication that Sargon (i.e. Cain) was once
there. What would Professor King have said to the still more surprising claim now put forward
that Sargon's empire included part of Britain? "A contemporary reference to the ... tin mines in
Britain appears probably to exist in the historical road-tablet of the great 'Akkad' emperor Sargon
I, ... recording the mileage and geography of the roads throughout his vast empire of world
conquest. The existing document is a certified copy in cuneiform script of the original record of
Sargon I. It was found at the Assyrian capital of Asshur, and was made by an official scribe in
the 8th century B.C. The tablet details the lengths of the roads within Sargon's empire from his
capital at Agade on the Euphrates, and records that 'the produce of the mines in talents, and the
produce of the fields to Sargon has been brought.' And it states that his empire of 'the countries
from the rising to the setting of the sun, which Sargon the .... king conquered with his hand,'
included amongst many other lands... the Tin-land country which lies beyond the Upper Sea (or
Mediterranean)." (**3) (The Phoenician Origin of Britons, L.A. Waddell, LL.D., C.B., C.I.E.,
etc., 1925, p.413) and on page 160 Professor Waddell writes:

"And it now seems that the 'Tin-land beyond the Upper Sea' or (Mediterranean) of the Amorites
(sic) subject to Sargon... was the Cassiterides of Cornwall" While another recent writer brings
forward evidence for the Cretan origin of "megalithic England." (**4) Granted that Sargon of
Akkad was Cain, and that he lived more than 700 years and possessed superhuman powers of
body and mind, we find a clue to the problem of the pre-historic civilization of Crete, Cyprus
and Greece, and possibly of Britain, since the monuments seem to show that Sargon traveled to
all these places. What more likely explanation can we find for the persistent traditions of "the
first Sea-King" of whom a recent writer says: "Both Herodotus and Thucydides have preserved
the record of the belief that a Cretan king called Minos was the first Sea-King known to history."
(The Life of the Ancient East, J. Baikie, 1923) (**5) The name Minos resembles that of Menes
which is now thought to have represented not one, but a whole dynasty of Egyptian kings who
according to Dr. Elliot Smith and other authorities came from Asia, (**6) and according to Dr.
Hall were "akin to the Cretans." (**7) One writer says:

(**1) See Appendix D. The same name was found upon a granite lion in
Babylonia (British Museum) Cambridge History, Vol I., p.175
(**2) Greek Art and National Life, Kaines Smith, p.43
(**3) Text published in Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts, 1920
No 92
(**4) Downland Man. H.J. Massingham
(**5) If Sargon was the first Sea-King and was represented as Merodach, the
trident with which that god is portrayed may be the original of Neptune's emblem.
See picture, p.91
(**6) The Ancient Egyptians, p.118, 141
(**7) Ancient History of the Near East, p.87

( Page 61 )

"In the word 'Minos' we have, not the name of a single man, but the title of a race of kings." (The
Life of the Ancient East, p.369, Rev. J. Baikie) Now almost the same thing is said about Mena
the traditional first king of Egypt, "It would seem that 'Mena' in reality represents the early
conquering monarchs of his dynasty." (Ancient History of the Near East, Dr. Hall, p.105)and
these remarks unintentionally support my theory that both the names Minos and Mena represent-
ed the race of Adam, and distinguished that race from the pre-Adamites of Crete and

Egypt. The early Cretans are called Minoans, and Dr. Hall connects them with the first Egyptian
rulers (the Men or Menti of the monuments (**1)) who according to Dr. Elliot Smith came from
Asia. (**2) This points to the fact that the names Minoan in Crete, Minyan in Armenia (in which
country the Ark is believed to have rested (**3)), Men in Babylonia (**4) and Mena, Men, or
Menti in Egypt distinguished Adam's race from the Negroid inhabitants of those countries.

However this may be, the following description of Minos of Crete and his servitor Daedalus is
interesting, because it fits Cain and his son's son Tubal-Cain. Mr. Baikie writes: "The Minos with
whom we are most familiar in Greek story is not the righteous lawgiver and friend of God, but
a very mundane ruler indeed. He is the great tyrant of the Aegean, sending out his fleets, and
exacting his dreadful tribute from all lands; he is the pattern of Daedalus, the father of all
artificers and inventors, who made for his master the gruesome brazen man Talos, and who built
the dancing ground of Ariadne in Knossos, and reared the famous labyrinth." (Life of the Ancient
East, p.369) Is it too fanciful to suggest that Daedalus was Tubal-Cain, "an instructor of every
artificer in brass and iron" (Gen iv,22) and that his brother Jubal, who "was the father of such as
handle the harp and organ" inspired the Terpsichorean art of Ariadne? Accounts of Cretan art
correspond so closely with what is said about Babylonian art that it seems necessary to trace both
to the same origin, especially as they existed in the same millennium. The following remarks
should be compared with those on page 30: "One of the most amazing revelations of the
excavations at Knossos was that of the artistic quality of the race of the Sea-Kings..."

(**1) Ancient History of the Near East, p.87
(**2) Ancient Egyptians
(**3) See Appendix B.
(**4) The Tel Armarna Tablets, Conder, p.174. "The land of the Men is said to
have been near Assyria."

Speaking of one example, and quoting Sir Arthur Evans, the same writer says:"As a work of art
it is superb in its realism and vigor. 'No figure of a bull,' says Evans, 'at once so powerful and so
true, was produced by later classical art'." (The Life of the Ancient East, J. Baikie, p.382) In
Cretan art as in that of Babylonia the outstanding feature is the willful degradation of true artistic
ability and taste. The following remarks might equally well be applied to such Babylonian seals
as those on pp.62 and 67.

Mr. Baikie says: "There goes the revelation, not only in the great frescoes, but even more in such
work as the seal impressions... of a strange, weird, unpleasant twist in the Minoan nature. There
was something perverted and unhealthy in the fancy which designed some of the nightmare
figures on these seals, whether their significance was religious or merely fantastic." (p.39) That
the hall-mark, as it were, of Cretan art was the serpent, helps to connect that degraded art with
Cain. H.J.Massingham says:

"Indeed we have in Crete, where the imagination sprouted and sported as it did in no other
country of the ancient world, and infinite variety of dragon-forms... It is in Crete, too, that the
serpent-cult of Egypt, represented by the sacred Uraeus, reached its apogee... And the serpent
was certainly one of the prototypes of the dragon, as was the griffin, stone images of which stood
in the throne-room of Minos. And when the mainland of Greece was fertilized with the cultural
traditions of the Late Minoan period, we have the dragon-sceptre of the Mycenaean kings,

( Page 62 )

another indication of the inter-relationship of kingship and dragonhood." (Fee, Fi, Fo, Fum,
p.102, 1926) Another link between Crete and the Babylonia of Sargon's time is the dress of the
women depicted upon the seals. It seems that, whether in Babylonia or Crete, the ladies of
Sargon's court, dressed much like those of Queen Victoria's. The Babylonian drawing repro-
duced illustrates this. (See p.121)

And of the Cretan women one writer says:

"The attire of the ladies was staggeringly modern. ... Evening dress, extremely low cut, puffed
sleeves, skirts elaborately flounced from hem to waist, hair wonderfully frizzed and curled...."
(The Life of the Ancient East, p.381, Rev. J. Baikie) Unintentional evidence of a connection
between the religions of Crete and Babylonia comes from two independent writers; one of whom
writes: "The mystic philosophy known as the Gnosis was in all probability the philosophy taught
in prehistoric times at Gnosis in Crete." (Archaic England, p.76, H. Bailey) The other writer says
that certain features of Gnosticism can be traced back to Babylonia, and that the seven evil spirits
credited by the Gnostics with the creation of the world are the same as the seven evil spirits of
Babylonian inscriptions who (as we have seen)(**1) are said to have created the first woman. If
Professor Waddell is right in identifying the "Sumerian Father-god" Zagg with the Cretan god
Zeus (**2) he, too, offers a link between the Babylonian and Cretan religions. We have already
seen that Sargon was perhaps sometimes called Zaggisi, (**3) so probably both Zagg and Zeus
were mythological representatives of him. Surely the mere possibility that King Minos was Cain
(and the most incredulous will, I think, admit that possibility) increases the interest of Crete and
its buildings. We are told "that the Palace of Knossos was the home of an advanced knowledge
of practically applied science, with its complex and skilful system of surface drainage, and well
contrived light-areas in the midst of its blocks of buildings," that it "presents a bewildering
complex of walls, chambers, courts, and corridors, well meriting the name Labyrinth," that "in
its labyrinthine rooms and corridors are paintings of mighty bulls, and of eager and excited
crowds of men and women," that Mino, its king, "was a mighty law-giver" and "that the
throne-room has been discovered" with the "royal throne set against the wall and surrounded by
the benches of his counsellors" (Greek Art and National Life, pp.15-25)

(**1) See p.59
(**2) Phoenician Origin of Britons, etc.,p.342
(**3) See p.38 and Appendix D., p.I

Another writer says:

"It took the European world more than three thousand years to regain the sanitary knowledge
which was lost when the Minoan Empire collapsed." (The Life of the Ancient East, p 392, J.
Baikie) Mr. Kaines Smith comments upon one curious feature of Knossos: "Now the almost
complete absence of fortifications at Knossos argues a feeling of security from attack which
could only have arisen from a very high state of civilization, and in addition, from a knowledge
of superiority to most enemies... Nor was attack feared from the sea, only a few watch-towers
protect the palace. From this fact the only possible deduction is that Crete held dominion
overseas." (Greek Art, etc., p.29) My suggestion is that Crete was, on the contrary, an oversea
colony of Babylonia and that the absence of fortifications was due to the fact that Adam's
descendants, through Seth, never interfered with Cain's career. I picture the Sethites in the
territory eventually destroyed by the Deluge, living as peacefully as Cain's raids (**1) upon them
and their own ever-increasing wickedness allowed. The fact that the ruins of several palaces have
been excavated in Crete, built on the same lines, although at intervals of centuries, supports the
theory that Cain, who lived for centuries, (**2) was their architect; and the following statement
helps my argument by showing that there once lived in Crete a priest king of gigantic size who
is suspected of sacrificing human beings and, perhaps, of cannibalism.

( Page 63 )

(**1) Sumer and Akkad p.249, L. King. See pp 132-144
(**2) Excavated by the French school of Athens.

Sir Arthur Evans is reported as saying:

"The discoveries which had been made by the French were of extraordinary interest. They found
that the rooms in which the ruler lived- he was certainly a priest king - were on one storey and
that windows looked out upon an open corridor. Facing the central court was a raised stone
platform, or loggia, approached by steps and with part of an altar on top of it. The priest king
evidently went up to his rooms on the inside and showed himself to the people in the central
court, and no doubt he performed certain rites or addressed the people. In a little room the French
investigators had found a pot which could be dated about 2100 B.C. and an immense bronze
sword longer than any ancient sword known in Europe. The sword was a beautiful fabric, gold
plated on the hilt and ending amount of amethystine colors, and it evidently belonged to the king
priest. Fragments of bone, which would probably prove to be human, were also found. There had
been discovered also a bronze axe, the back of which was formed in the shape of a leopard and
was covered with spiral ornamentation. This was a ceremonial axe that had belonged to a cult
which came over, no doubt, from Asia Minor, and it was apparently the badge of the King's
dignity as priest, as the sword was the badge of his civil power. These formed the first remains
that had been found on one of the early prehistoric kings." (Times newspaper, November 11th,
1925) Seeing that Sargon of Akkad may be traced to Crete and that the civilization of that island
is dated back to Sargon's period (according to the monuments) (**1) and to Cain's (according to
the Bible dates) it may be confidently claimed that no more reasonable explanation is to be found
for its pre-historic glories than that Cain with his superhuman knowledge once ruled there. If
those fragments of bone are really human, they, as well as the mighty sword and the ceremonial
axe, may be sinister links with the "first murderer." As the priest king of Enlil what ghastly rites
may he not have performed upon that platform in sight of his cringing courtiers? Were the
Babylonian priests serious or ironical when they wrote of Sargon that "he poured out his glory
over the world?" (**2)

(**1) Ency. Brit., Ed. XI, Crete. "The successive 'Minoan' strata, which go well
back into the fourth millennium B.C."
(**2) Sumer and Akkad, p.234

VII. THE SAD END OF SARGON

A late Jewish tradition describes Cain in his last days as a fugitive and a terrible spectacle, having
grown a long horn upon his forehead. (**1) He is said to have been mistaken for a wild beast
while lurking in a thicket and to have been shot by his blind descendant Lamech. Whether there
is any truth in that story or not, it certainly appears from the garbled fragments of the priests'
writings that the "Babylonian Charlemagne" fell on evil days. According to Professor King, one
of Sargon's inscriptions says: "Because of the evil which he had committed the great Marduk was
angry and he destroyed his people by famine. From the rising of the sun unto the setting of the
sun they opposed him and gave him no rest... It may seem strange that such an ending should
follow the account of a brilliant and victorious reign. But it is perhaps permissible to see in the
evil deeds ascribed to Sargon a reference to his policy of deportation which may have raised him
bitter enemies among the priesthood and the more conservative elements in the population of the
country." (Sumer and Akkad, p.240) The theory that Sargon was in the habit of deporting his
subjects encourages the assumption that Cain's civilization and customs were early spread
abroad. (**2)

In the Cambridge History we read: "The glorious reign of Sargon closed with the entire empire
in revolt. The Babylonian Chronicle pragmatically attributes his disaster to the violation of the
holy city Babylon. An Omen text preserves the same tradition: 'Sargon whose troops bound him
in a trench and suppressed their master in a coalition.' The misfortune which overtook him at the

( Page 64 )

end of his career is again referred to a birth omen, 'If a ewe give birth to a lion with the head of
a lamb, lamentation of Sargon whose universal dominion (passed away)'." (p. 408) Cain's
successor seems to have been called Naram-Sin and to have been as great a warrior as Sargon;
he claims the proud title of "King of the four quarters (of the world)" (**3) and is said to have
conquered nine armies. (**4)

Professor King says: "There can be little doubt that Shar-Gani-sharri was succeeded on the
throne of Akkad by Naram-Sin, whom we may regard with considerable confidence as his son
as well as successor... " (Sumer and Akkad p.241) Considering the unreliable character of the
priestly writings it is impossible to know whether these kings did everything which the inscrip-
tions suggest; but if they were Cain and his son they might well have done wonders, for
presumably they were superhuman. Sargon's dynasty had evidently come to an end about the
year 2400 B.C. when a king called Samu-abi (Shem is my father) is known to have conquered
Babylonia (**5) and to have founded the dynasty of which Khammurabi the reputed contempo-
rary of Abraham was the last king. This dynasty is naturally considered to have been of the race
of Shem; and although Assyriologists have inserted several conjectural dynasties based upon
"Sumerian" names between Samu-abi and Sargon, my conviction is that Cain's descendants
reigned in Babylonia until they were finally driven out by Shem or his sons. God was to "dwell
in the tents of Shem" (Gen ix, 27) and unquestionably Shem's descendants were the preservers
of the Divine oracles from the time of Noah; it is therefore very

probable that Shem's tribe attacked Babylonia (the stronghold of idolatry). And if the later
Babylonia priests disguised the fact that servants of the One God had once conquered and
reigned in their land, and preferred to suggest that Cain's rule ended in a revolution of his own
subjects, it is only what we should expect from them. That Noah's sons brought about the
downfall of Cain's empire is suggested by the monuments which show that the people against
whom Sargon and his son fought in Western Asia were of the same race as themselves and not
black people as Sargon's subjects seem to have been. Describing the stele of Sharru-gi (another
form of the name Sargon), Professor King says:

(**1) Perhaps the story of the horn arose from the fact that Sargon wore a horned
helmet resembling that seen in the drawing given above of Sargon's son. Professor
King says: "He wears a helmet adorned with the horns of a bull, and he carries a
battle-axe and a bow and arrow." (See illustration facing)
(**2) Sumer and Akkad, L. King p.242
(**3) Sumer and Akkad, L. King p.242
(**4) Times History, Vol I p.363
(**5) Usher's date for the Deluge is about 50 years later, but considering that such
early dates are only approximate this disparity is negligible.

"The king's enemies are Semites so that even in his time we have the picture of different clans
or tribes contending among themselves for the possession of the countries they had overrun."
(Sumer and Akkad, p.249) That no black enemies appear in the war pictures of the period
justifies the conclusion that when "the Children of the Sun-god" wandered eastwards in search,
as it is thought, of gold, pearls, and turquoise, they met with no resistance from any black races
they may have encountered, and peacefully founded civilizations as Cain had first done in
Babylonia. All except one of the great ancient civilizations have long passed away, but the
remaining one has so many characteristics in common with Sargon's empire that some allusion
to it is irresistible, and that the Yellow race owes its origin to "a very early blend" of Cain's race
with a black race is a proposition quite in accordance with Ethnological doctrines. (**1)

(**1) Ency. Brit., Ed. XI, Ethnology.

( Page 65 )

VIII. WAS CAIN THE FOUNDER OF CHINA?

The suggestion that Cain or his near descendants founded the mysterious Chinese empire may,
at first sight, be regarded as fantastic, but Chinese traditions and other considerations offer
ground for such a theory. Just as Sargon of Akkad is said to have ruled over the black heads, so
in Chinese tradition the first ruler is said to have "transformed the black-haired people" and to
have made them "brightly intelligent." (**1) Just as Cain, if my deductions are correct, brought
the knowledge of One God into Babylonia but substituted for His worship the worship of his own
parents, so we find that in China both the knowledge of One God and the worship of ancestors
existed as far back as history can reach.

In the Encyclopedia Britannica we read that: "The earliest traces of religious thought and
practice in China point to a simple monotheism. There was a Divine Ruler of the universe,
abiding on high, beyond the ken of man... Gradually to this monotheistic conception was added
a worship of the sun, moon and constellations, of the five planets, and of such noticeable
individual stars as (e.g.) Canopus, which is now looked upon as the home of the God of
Longevity... Side by side with such sacrificial rites was the worship of ancestors, stretching so
far back that its origin is not discernible in such historical documents as we possess... This
ancestor cult is not a memorial service in simple honour of the dead; but has always been, and
still is, worship in the strict sense of the term." (Ed. XI, Vol. 6, p.174)

(**1) Sacred Books of the East, Max Muller, p.32

A more recent writer says: "The origin of the Chinese is shrouded in obscurity. Some suppose
that the ancestors of the Chinese first lived in the territory south of the Caspian sea and migrated
eastward somewhere about the 23rd century B.C. Others assert that their original home was in
Babylonia on the great Euphrates plain, and that they derived many of the elements of their
civilization from the ancient Chaldeans... it seems certain that they traveled from the western part
of Asia and made a settlement first of all in what is now known as the modern province of Shensi
in the Valley of the Yellow River. After their migration they soon took up agricultural pursuits
and ceased to be a pastoral people. Among the most primitive characters of the Chinese written
language, we find hieroglyphs which point to the conclusion that they not only kept sheep and
cattle but also engaged in tilling the soil. In many ways the construction of a Chinese house bears
a strong resemblance to that of a tent, and this gives the idea that the Chinese were originally a
nomadic or wandering people. The Chinese were not the first inhabitants of the country in which
they settled. Upon migrating to the Valley of the Yellow River they found aboriginal tribes
already in possession and obtained the territory from them by conquest. These native tribes were
pressed more and more south and west but were never exterminated." (Sketch of Chinese
History, F. Hawkes Pott, p.23) The same writer says that the earliest rulers "brought all the
culture of China," that to them was due its Golden Age, and (which is suggestive in connection
with Cain) one of those earliest rulers was known as the "Divine Agriculturist." (**1) The late
Professor Terrein de Lacouperie claimed a great similarity between the Babylonian and Chinese
beliefs and institutions, in their astronomy and medicine, and drew attention to the fact that
recent excavations in Babylon show that:

"the canals and artificial waterways of China suggest a striking likeness to the canals with which
the whole of Babylonia must have been intersected, and which must have been as characteristic
a feature of that country as similar works in China at the present day." (China, Professor K.
Douglas) One grim sign that the Chinese civilization was derived from Cain is that, according to
old historians, cannibalism existed among the ancient Chinese. (**2) It could hardly have been
taken there by the Hamites for they seem to have gone into Africa, nor is there any reason to
suspect the family of Japheth of spreading evil, or for that matter of building up great civiliza-
tions; the descendants of Shem, judging by all we hear of them in the Bible, were incapable of
such barbarism, and we may therefore conclude that cannibalism was taken into China from
Babylonia by some of Cain's race, or even perhaps by Cain himself.

( Page 66 )

(**1) Golden Bough, Vol 2 p.12
(**2) Ency. Brit., p.184, Ed. XI Cannibalism

It must be granted that these are solid grounds for thinking that the Chinese civilization
originated in Mesopotamia, and there is further evidence of this. Several writers believe that the
Chinese language has some affinity with the primitive language of Babylonia, and Professor
Sayce quotes Professor de Lacouperie as saying that the ancestors of the Chinese were in contact
with the inventors of the cuneiform system of writing, while he himself traces the oblique eyes
peculiar to the Chinese back to Babylonia, saying: "The earliest Babylonian monuments give
two types of man, one with oblique eyes and negrito-like face, the other heavily bearded."
(Archaeology of the Inscriptions, Sayce) Just as Cain's arrival in Babylonia seems the simplest
explanation of the sudden advent in that country of civilization and culture, so his influence
would account, as nothing else could do, for the Chinese art, philosophy and science which are
known to have existed at the beginning of their history. That a people who have never changed
or advanced and are in some ways so barbarous and so diabolically cruel should have possessed
the knowledge of good and evil from the first is a problem only to be explained by this theory
about Cain, which receives more unintentional support from Professor Douglas, who says:
"There is nothing improbable in the supposed movements of the Chinese tribes from Mesopota-
mia to the banks of the Yellow river." (China) Trifling as the following indications may seem,
they help to support my theory. We have seen that the title of "Divine Agriculturist" was known
in ancient Chinese history. Is it perhaps in memory of Cain, the first "tiller of the ground," that
the Chinese Emperor has from the time immemorial opened the ploughing for the year in the
"sacred field," sometimes called the "field of God?"

Sir James Frazer says: "The emperor attended by the highest dignitaries of the state, guides with
his own hand the ox-drawn plough down several furrows and scatters the seed in a sacred field,
a field of God." (Golden Bough, Vol. II, p.12 Ed. 2) Again, was it to Cain's 730 years' lease of
life that the Emperor Ho-ang-ti referred (**1) when lamenting the comparative shortness of life
in his own time; and is that long lifetime commemorated by the Chinese of to-day (unconscious
though they may be of the fact) in their Hall of Imperial Longevity, their god of longevity, etc?
The name China itself, and the names Chang, Chien, Chuen, Kan, Kieng, etc., all resembling the
name Cain, as well as Kha-khan, the title of the chief Mongol, are noteworthy; as is also Sin or
Sing resembling the "sin" of Naram-Sin. Again, for straws show which way the wind blows, the
Chinese Imperial title, Ruler of the Yellow, the coveted order of the Yellow Jacket, the Yellow
titles of the Imperial palaces and the temples, the Yellow Imperial color and the Yellow River
are all curiously suggestive considering that, for some unknown reason, yellow is Cain's
traditional colour. Shakespeare wrote:

"a little beard, a Cain-coloured beard" (**1), and in ancient tapestries Cain's beard is always
yellow. And what of China's Dragon, "the symbol of the Sage and of the King," the Deity
alternately praised and blamed, blessed and cursed, the emblem of the Emperor in his Dragon
robes upon his Dragon throne before his Dragon tablet? Surely in the Dragon of China we find
another link with Babylonia and with Cain, for were not King Cain's subjects called the Children
of Bel and was not Bel the Dragon? In Babylonia, upon the libation vases of the temples were
depicted fabulous reptiles. (**2) In China (as one writer says) the Dragon is intimately associat-
ed with the element of water, (**3) while in Babylonia Bel sometimes appeared as Akki the
water-carrier or irrigator.

(**1) See pg.33

Professor Douglas writes: "The chains of hills which almost encircle Peking are called the
protecting Dragon, which is believed to ensure the city's prosperity. The mound built behind a
tomb to keep off the north wind is called the Dragon." (China) This digression upon the Chinese
empire, which may be thought irreverent, is warranted I feel, by my firm conviction that while,
humanly speaking, Babylonia owed to Cain the Golden Cup which was to make the nations mad,

( Page 67 )

China owes to him its emblem the Dragon -"the old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which
deceiveth the whole world." (Rev.xii,9) (See illustration facing)

(**1) Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.
(**2) Professor Elliot Smith writes: "At a very early date both India and China were
diversely influenced by Babylonia, the great breeding place of dragons" (p.102)
and (p.95, footnote). "There can be no doubt that the Chinese dragon is the
descendant of the early Babylonian monster and that the inspiration to create it
reached Shensi during the 3rd millennium B.C. (The Evolution of the Dragon.)
(**3) See appendix I.

IX. EVIDENCE SUMMED UP

The evidence that Cain was Sargon may then be summed up as follows: The fact that Sargon's
achievements imply both a degree of wisdom and power unparalleled in history, and a long life,
such as is traditionally ascribed to Cain. The extraordinary ability combined with depravity of
Sargon's government and activities, so consistent with all that is known of Cain. The probability
that the Babylonian city of Erech or Unuk was the city of Enoch built by Cain. (see p.27) The
fact that the city is often mentioned in inscriptions in connection with Sargon, and is called, "the
seat of the worship of Anu and Ishtar" (the deified representatives of Adam and Eve); and that it
was "in the court of Sargon" that the worship of those gods was first established. (see p.71) That
Sargon's date was about 3800 B.C., at which time Cain, according to the Bible dates, may have
been alive. That the second syllable of Sargon's name is the same as Cain, and the first syllable
means a ruler or King. That while St. John says that Cain was "of that wicked one," Sargon is
called the "king-priest of Enlil" (the Devil); (**1) is shown to have been adopted by Akki (the
Devil); (**2) and is made to call his father "Dati-Enlil" (the Devil). (**3) That his arrival is
described in a legend as sudden and mysterious, as Cain's arrival in Babylonia must have been.
That Sargon, like Cain, ruled over a race different from himself.

(**1) Cambridge History Vol. I, p.408
(**2) See p. 94
(**3) See p.95

That Sargon is called the "king of the city," (**1) whereas Cain, according to the Bible, built a
city. That Sargon is called "the Founder," the "constituted" or "pre-destined king", the "Deviser
of constituted law and Deviser of prosperity" or the "very wise," all of which might well have
described Cain. That Sargon is represented in inscriptions as the gardener of Anu (Adam), as
Beloved of Ishtar (Eve) and only loved by her for a certain period, since he says: "When I was a
gardener Ishtar loved me," which may refer to the fact that after the murder of Abel, Eve
renounced Cain. That Sargon is called the son of Ea (Eve) (**2) and, under the name of
Merodach the Sun-god, is constantly called the first born of Ea, is shown to be the brother of
Tammuz (Abel) and (as Adar) to have killed Tammuz. That while Sargon's subjects are called
the black-heads, Merodach, whom I regard as the mythological representative of Cain, is said to
have ruled over the Igigi or Nigil (ma), probably negroes. It must be remembered too, that the
theory of Cain's presence in Babylonia offers the best explanation for the sudden arrival in that
country of a marvelous civilization and culture, and relieves us of the necessity of believing that
it was gradually evolved by an inferior race; that it seems to be the key to the Sumerian problem
- to the problem of the origin of idolatry - to the problem of the ancient civilizations attributed
to the Children of the Sun-god - and to be the best explanation of the Roman Custom which Sir
James Frazer makes the keynote of "The Golden Bough." Finally, it explains, as nothing else can
do, how the knowledge of God and of His laws was taken into Babylonia in the very earliest
times and how that knowledge came to be suppressed or travestied almost beyond recognition.

(**1) Hibbert Lectures, Sayce, p.28
(**2) Worship of the Dead, Garnier, p.399

( Page 68 )

X. THE PICTURE PUZZLE MADE

Putting together all this evidence we can picture Cain - a superman- heir to supernatural
knowledge, who (we infer) had spoken face to face with some Divine Messenger - going forth
alone in agony of mind among an unknown and dreaded race.

A Jewish history says:"Cain dwelt in the earth trembling according as God had appointed him
after he slew Abel his brother." (**1) But it adds "and he began to build cities" and "he founded
seven cities", which indicates that new courage came to him; and the Babylonian inscriptions
show whence it came. According to them it was the Devil who adopted Sargon and in exchange
for his worship and obedience gave him power and wealth. Perhaps the scribe who wrote: "the
evil spirit hath lain wait in the desert, unto the side of the man hath drawn nigh," (**2) hinted
darkly at the temptation and fall of Cain, who must have become "of that wicked one" and must
have drunk deep of the Golden Cup before he built sanctuaries to Adam and Eve in his city of
Enoch, thus breaking the greatest of God's commandments. Can we not imagine Cain surrounded
by his "sons of the palace" clothed like Merodach upon the monuments - riding over mountains
in bronze chariots (**3) - conquering and to conquer - floating in some stately barge from one
of his seven cities to another while his pre-Adamite subjects toiled in the plains which he, by his
irrigation works, had transformed into the garden of the ancient world; or exploring the seas with
a fleet of many-oared ships.

(**1) Biblical Antiquities of Philo, p.77, Trans. by M. R. James
(**2) The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, R. Thompson, Vol. II, p.105
(**3) Sargon says: "In multitudes of bronze chariots I have rode over rugged
lands... three times to the sea I advanced." (Hibbert Lectures, Sayce, p.27

SARGON THE MAGNIFICENT - APPENDIXES

APPENDIX A (p.9) - THE TESTIMONY OF SCIENCE & TOO HASTY CRITICISMS

APPENDIX B. (p.18) - There is another wrong impression

APPENDIX C TO D (p.25) - AN INTERESTING POSSIBILITY

APPENDIX E (p58) - Professor Sayce on human sacrifices

APPENDIX F (p101) - The art of irrigation & Amon & Ham

APPENDIX G (p54) - The hymn to Enlil

APPENDIX FA (p 109) - Sir James Frazer on Apuleius

APPENDIX H (p.127) - Philology that Cain was probably the instigator of cannibalism

APPENDIX I (p.149) - The Dragon of China

APPENDIX A

THE TESTIMONY OF SCIENCE

The agreement of scientific discoveries with the sequence of events of the Creation of the World,
described in the Bible as occurring during the seven periods (so-called days), is denied. We
read: "that the records of the pre-historic ages in Genesis are at complete variance with modern
science and archaeological research is unquestionable." (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ed. II.
Genesis) Yet the agreement of the Bible statements with modern science was attested to by
scientists in the last century, and as far as I can ascertain no later discoveries have discredited

( Page 69 )

their judgment. Dr. Kinns, Ph.D. (University of Jena), who published a list of the scientists who
had approved his work, points out that the events of the Creation of the Bible narrative are fifteen
in number, and the evolution of the world as admitted by those scientists can also be divided into
fifteen stages. Since a mathematical calculation shows that the chance of accidentally reproduc-
ing the exact relative sequence of any fifteen units is about a million the most skeptical must
allow the improbability, to say the least of it, of the exact reproduction of either of these
sequences being accidental... Yet their agreement is proved by science. The following is Dr.
Kinn's comparison of the events of the Creation as attested to by the Bible on one side and on
the other by modern science:

Primarily: Science says that matter existed first in a highly attenuated gaseous condition, called
aether, without any form, and non-luminous.

Moses says: "And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the
deep."

I. Science: The condensation of this aether formed luminous nebulae, which
afterwards still further condensed into suns and worlds. Moses: "And God said, Let
there be light."
II. Science: In this condensation of nebulae astronomical facts go to prove that other
worlds were formed before the Solar System. Moses: "God created the Heaven and
the Earth."
III. Science: On the cooling of the earth some of the gases which surrounded it,
combined mechanically and chemically to form air and water. Moses: "And God
said, Let there be a firmament."
IV. Science: On further cooling great convulsions took place, which heaved up the
rocks and raised them above the universal sea, forming mountains, islands and
continents. Moses: "And God said, Let the dry land appear."
V. Science: The earliest forms of vegetable life were cryptograms, such as the algae
lichens, fungi and ferns, on the land, these are propagated by spores and not be
seeds. Dr. Hicks has found fern in the lower silurian of Wales. Moses: "And God
said, Let the earth bring forth grass." Literal translation: Let the earth sprout forth
sproutage, which might be rendered tender herbage.
VI. Science: Next succeeded the lower class of phonograms, or flowering plants
called gymnosperms, from having naked seeds, such as the conifers. Dana mentions
coniferous wood found in the lower Devonian.Moses: "The herb yielding seed."
VII. Science: These were followed by a higher class of Phenogams, or flowering
plants, bearing a low order of fruit, found in the Middle Devonian and Carbonifer-
ous strata. Moses: "And the fruit tree yielding fruit." The higher order of fruit trees
appeared when "God planted a garden" later on.
VIII. Science: The earth until after the Carboniferous period was evidently surround-
ed with much vapour, and an equable climate prevailed all over its surface;
afterwards these mists subsided, and then the direct rays of the sun caused the seasons.
Moses: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, and let them
be for signs and for seasons.
IX. Science: After the Carboniferous period many fresh species of marine animals
appeared, and the seas swarmed with life. Moses: "And God said, Let the waters
bring forth abundantly."
X. Science: In the New Red Sandstone footprints of birds are found for the first time.
Moses: "And fowl that may fly above the earth."

XI. Science: In the after strata of the Lias, monster Saurians such as the Ichthyosau-
rus and Plesiosaurus are found.
Moses: "And God created great whales." Should have been translated "sea mon-
sters."

( Page 70 )

XII. Science: Enormous beasts, such as the Megalosaurus, Iguanodon, and Dinoth-
erium, preceded the advent of cattle.
Moses: "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind."
XIII. Science: Cattle, such as oxen and deer, appeared before man; some of them in
the Post-Pliocene period.
Moses: "And cattle after their kind."
XIV. Science: According to Agassiz, the principal flowers, fruit trees, and cereals
appeared only a short time previous to the human race.
Moses: "The Lord God planted a garden... and out of the ground made the Lord God
to grow everything that is pleasant to the sight and good for food."
XV. Science: The highest and last created form of animal life was man. Moses:
"And God created man in His own image."

Finally:

Science: As far as our present knowledge goes, no fresh species of plants or animals were created
after man. Moses: "God ended His work which He had made."

In these ways, as Dr. Kinns points out, the book of nature supports the Bible. Sir John Herschel
once wrote: "All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more
strongly the truths that come from on high and are contained in the sacred writings."

TOO HASTY CRITICISMS

In the One Volume Bible Commentary (Genesis) the writer says: "Assuming that the astronomers
are right, or, indeed, on any reasonable proposition, the sun and moon were not created later than
the earth." But does the Bible say they were? Is it not evident that verse 16 of the first chapter,
in which the sun and moon are mentioned, refers back to the creation of the great light called Day
described in the first verse? Could that light have been any other than the sun? That it was so,
one translator of the Bible makes clearer by rendering verse 16 as "And God had made two
luminaries," and by rendering the first verse: "By periods, God created that which produced the
suns; then that which produced the earth." (**1) Thus rendered, these verses harmonize with the
modern theory of the solar system. Dr. Kinns shows that where we read in Gen. I, 16, "God made
two great lights," reference is made to the period when the dense vapors that first surrounded the
earth disappeared, enabling the light and heat of the sun to reach it. He shows that the word
"made" may equally well be rendered "appointed" as in the 104th Psalm, verse 19: "He
appointed the moon for seasons, and the sun knoweth his going down." Another writer, referring
to the Creation and Fall of Man, the sentence on mankind, etc., says: "The discoveries of the
immensities of the universe, of the antiquity of man, and of the compilation of the Old Testament
between 458 and 140 B.C. cut away the whole foundation of this theology." But, I would ask this
writer, where does the Bible upon which "this theology" is founded, deny the immensity of the
universe or limit the antiquity of the pre-Adamites in whose existence it leads us to believe. and
what proof is there that the Bible Records were not handed down both in writing and orally in
an unbroken line from Adam? - I can find none.

(**1) Ferrer Fenton, The Bible in Modern English

APPENDIX B.

"There is another wrong impression - that the ark rested upon the top of Mount Ararat. The Bible
does not say so, but that it rested upon the mountains of Ararat. Now the ark could not have
rested upon several mountains, but it might float on to a portion of this chain of mountains, and
be left there some feet above the ground when the waters subsided. In Mr. George Smith's

( Page 71 )

translation of the 'Deluge Tablet,' we find it stated that 'the mountains of Nizir stopped the ship;
and to pass over it, it was not able.'" (Moses and Geology S. Kinns, p.399)

APPENDIX C TO D

AN INTERESTING POSSIBILITY

According to inscriptions and drawings Sargon was constantly at war with people of his own
race; we may conclude, therefore, that he came into collision with the other branch of Adam's
family. He is said to have brought captives of war into Babylonia and in this way probably raised
the standard of the population. Professor King writes: "The people of Elam which was situated
east of Mesopotamia were, from an early period, in constant conflict with Babylonia." (Books
on Egypt and Chaldea, vol. IV, p.157) The name "Elam" marks Cain's adversaries as a non
Canaanite branch of Adam's family, for Elam was a son of Shem; but it is, of course, an
anachronism when applied to people of Sargon's time, if Sargon was Cain, and if, as seems
practically certain, "Elam" was called after Shem's son, who lived long after Sargon's death. The
loose way in which Biblical names are used has been remarked upon. (See p.14) One wonders
how the Deluge, which destroyed the Adamites affected Cain's nation in Babylonia. It is at least
suggestive that in Dr. Moffat's new version of the Old Testament we find that when the Adamites
came to "an untimely end (**1) when the floods undermined them, good men rejoiced to see
their fate, and over them the guiltless jeered, shouting 'Our foes are now effaced, and what they
leave the flames will burn'." As it is difficult to imagine Noah and his family regarding the rest
of Adam's race (the Sethites) as their foes, the question arise - can Cain and his followers be
alluded to? There is scope for investigation in the fact that the Hebrew word translated guiltless
is Naqi or Naqah which resembles the word Akki or Akkad - Should it have been rendered
"Akkadians" instead of "guiltless"? It is easier to picture Sargon's descendants and their
followers shouting "our foes are now effaced, and what they leave the flames will burn" than to
believe that Noah and his family could be so inhuman. According to the Bible dates, the Deluge
took place about the year 2348 B.C. so Shem's descendants and those of Cain may have come
into conflict, for a "Semitic" king called Samu-abi (Shem is my father(**2)) overthrew some
Babylonian dynasty about that time. (**3) And it seems possible that Shem's son Asshur, who
is said in the Bible to have gone forth from the Land of Nimrod and to have built Nineveh, was
that Semitic king. The reason why Nimrod was ruling in Babylonia at that time may be that he
was the last representative of Cain's dynasty if, as Bishop Cumberland surmised (**4), his
grandfather Ham took as his wife Naamah, Cain's woman descendant; Nimrod may have
succeeded to the Babylonian throne through her. According to Josephus and other Jewish
traditions Nimrod was a bad man - what more natural, therefore, than that Shem's son should
have descended upon him, driven him out, and reigned in his stead? He may have escaped to
Egypt, for there is reason to think that he was the human original of the Egyptian god Osiris
(**5); and the name Nimrod appears in Egyptian inscriptions. If his grandfather and father went
down into Egypt as the fact that that land was called after them both seems to prove, it would
naturally have been his place of refuge. Considering all this it is not difficult to imagine how
Cain's evil customs arrived in Egypt and, as some writers have suggested, passed on even into
Mexico.

Just as the priests blurred their picture of the Sun-god Merodach (whom I identify with Cain) by
giving him another name, varying his attributes and inventing, in later times, two other Sun-
gods, so they have blurred their picture of Sargon by ascribing his achievements to other rulers
bearing "Sumerian" names. As we have seen, for instance, "Enmerkar"(**6) to whom they
ascribe the building of Erech is obviously Sargon under another name if Professor Sayce is right
in thinking that Cain built that city (**7) and if I am right in believing that Cain was Sargon. In
the same way a king called Lugal-Zaggisi is said to have "consolidated and ruled an empire
extending from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean" (**8); and even Professor King who
regarded Lugal-Zaggisi as a real and separate individual, says that although Sargon achieved all
that, there are "difficulties in the way of crediting Lugal-Zaggisi with a like achievement."
(**9) We have seen that Professor King admits that Sargon's history is the one point in early

( Page 72 )

Babylonian history certainly established. (**10) Colonel Garnier, who considers that Lugal-
Zaggisi was only another name for Sargon, points out that both Lugal-Zaggisi and Sargon are
said to be the king of Erech and the high-priest of En-lil, that they both say that En-lil bestowed
upon them their lands and subjects, that they conquered "from the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea,"
and that they are "the mighty man, son of the god Ea, prince of the Moon-god, begotten of
Tammuz and Ishtar." (**11) "Hence," as Colonel Garnier says, "Lugal-Zaggisi is the Great Lord
(or king) Sargina." (**12) The fact that the names of Lugal-kigub-ninidudu and Lugal-kisalsi are
found upon a door socket attributed to Sargon suggests that they, too, were other names applied
to Sargon and Colonel Garnier identifies the first name with Sargon. (**13) All this helps to
show how the Babylonian priests tried to make things difficult. (**14) Another instance of the
priests' inconsistencies commented on in the Cambridge History, Vol I, p.403: "Of Sargon,
founder of the Semitic dynasty at Agade, many romantic stories were current. Two chronologi-
cal tablets state: 'At Agade Sharru-kin-lubani, a gardener and cup-bearer of Ur-Ilbaba, having
been made king, ruled 55 years.'" In a foot note the following comment is made: "But Ur-Ilbaba
was the third king of the fourth dynasty of Kish and is assigned a reign of eighty years (according
to another tablet, six years) and as five other kings of Kish and the reign of Lugal-Zaggisi
intervene with a total of eighty-six years, Sargon cannot have been the king's cup-bearer... It was
a posthumous cult of Ur-Ilbaba at Kish in which the young Sargon officiated." I submit that the
name Ur-Ilbaba was only one of the names invented by the priests who disguised the true history
of Ancient Babylonia, that, as Colonel Garnier, was the first to suggest, Lugal-Zaggisi was
another name for Sargon; that the "other five kings" were fictitious; and that we see in the
discrepancy described above an example of how the priests' inscriptions puzzle and mislead us
unless we realized that they were meant to mystify posterity. In connection with my theory that
Cain's superhuman knowledge was spread over the world by his descendants it is at least curious
that the pioneers of iron-working in Borneo are called "the Kayan" and their ancestors are said
to have been "a gang of criminals" (**15), although it was apparently they who taught the
aborigines of Borneo the art of working in metal.

One writer says: "In any account of the arts and crafts of the Kayans the working of iron claims
the first place by reason of its high importance to them and of the skill and knowledge displayed
by them in the operations by which they produced their fine swords. The origin of their
knowledge of iron and of the processes of smelting and forging remains hidden in mystery (!);
but there can be little doubt that the Kayan were familiar with these processes before they
entered Borneo." (Children of the Sun, W. J. Perry, p.122) There are indications that some of
Noah's family traveled from Babylonia to Egypt and thence across to Africa to America. The
Encyclopedia Britannica (ed. XI) says "that on account of those indications the first Spanish
explorers of Mexico arrived at the curiously definite result that the Mexicans were descended
from Naphtuhim, son of Mizraim and grandson of Noah who left Egypt for Mexico shortly after
the confusion of tongues." Naturally, since the Bible History is ignored by modern scholars, the
writer continues "modern archaeologists approach the question from a different standpoint,"
although he seems to support the theories held by the Spaniards by adding that "the original
peopling of America might... well date from the time when there was continuous land between
it and Asia." One indication that the Babylonian civilization went into Egypt is that the oldest
pyramid (that of Sakkarah) is, like the Babylonian towers, built in terraces; (**16) and that it
penetrated into Mexico is indicated by the facts that the "Mexican belief in the stages of heaven
and hell was apparently learnt from the Babylonian-Greek astronomical theory," (**17) and that:
"not long ago Dr. Thomas Gann announced that Dr. H. J. Spinden, of Harvard, had discovered
definite proofs of the exact year from which the ancient Maya builders of Central America dated
their time-count, namely 3373 B.C., "(**18) a discovery proving that the Mayan civilization
existed at a time when, according to the Bible and monumental evidence combined, Cain (i.e.
Sargon) may have been reigning in Babylonia is, to say the least, significant. The architecture
and decorations of the ancient Maya buildings are strangely reminiscent of Chinese art.

( Page 73 )

And one writer says:

"The jade beads dug up amid Aztec remains probably had their origin in China, the nearest point
where such jade is found. The bronze figure exhumed in the old tomb at Oaxaca is undoubtedly
Chinese." (Mexico as I saw it, Mrs. Alec Tweedie, p.161) These facts suggest that there was
intercourse between China and Mexico in ancient times, and that Babylonia was the go-between
seems likely, for a few drawings found there are unmistakably Chinese in style, (**19) while
pottery lately discovered in China resembles Babylonian work. We read in Discovery, A
Monthly Journal of Knowledge, December, 1926:

"The discovery of such pottery in China created a sensation among European archaeologists.
The manner of its manufacture, its general appearance,... all recalled the pottery found on
Neolithic and early Bronze Age in Eastern Europe and Western Asia... at Susa, at Ur, ...
Interesting speculations were at once suggested. Was China after all connected with the Near
East in its very early days? ...Was there a common origin for the Neolithic inhabitants of both
extremities of the Asiatic continent?" In connection with Professor Waddell's information
quoted on page 134, it is interesting that he links up the Babylonian goddess with the British
"Queen of the May," whom he also connects with the "Maia of the Greeks, Mahi and Maya of
the Vedas and Indian epics"; and he suggests that the ancient May Day festivities included
human sacrifices and cannibalism. He writes:

"Thus we have the vestiges of this sacrificial so-called Beltane rite surviving in Britain on May
Day with the ceremonial sacrifice of a boy victim by lot." (p.271) and mentions: "the prevalence
of cannibalism amongst savage tribes in Britain." It seems probably, therefore, that English
merry-makers have unconsciously commemorated grim ceremonies once held by Babylonian
immigrants in these islands in honour of the Devil; and that the May-pole was cousin-german to
the sacred tree of the murderer priest king of Nemi. Happily, Britons need not own descent from
the importers of Babylonian names and customs; for archaeological research is showing more
and more distinctly that the builders of Avebury and Stonehenge came here (and apparently
passed away) before the arrival of the Brythons, Cymbri, Celts and other tribes whom we may
safely claim as our ancestors.

(**1) Job xxii, 16-20
(**2) Times History, Vol. I, p.363
(**3) Times History, Vol. I, p.327
(**4) Sanchoniathon's History, p.107, Cumberland. The writer says that accord-
ing to Plutarch, the wife of Cronus (the mythological form of Ham), was
"Nemaus," which he says would be just the Greek form of the Hebrew "Naamah,"
the only woman descendant of Cain mentioned in the Bible.
(**5) Worship of the Dead, p.36. "Nimrod also appears to have been the human
original of the Egyptian 'Osiris'."
(**6) See Appendix D. p. iv
(**7) See p.34
(**8) See p.27
(**9) Sumer and Akkad, pp.197-198
(**10) See p.35
(**11) Worship of the Dead, p.399
(**12) See p.93 and Worship of the Dead, p.399
(**13) Sumer of Akkad, p.199
(**14) See p.59
(**15) Children of the Sun, p.110
(**16) History of Egypt, Birch, p.25
(**17) Ency. Brit., Ed. XI, Mexico, p.330

(**18) Discovery. A monthly Journal of Knowledge, June 1925

( Page 74 )

(**19) See portrait of Marduk with dragon, Mesopotamia, by L. Delaporte p.140 (Berlin
Museum)

APPENDIX E

Professor Sayce writes: "That human sacrifices, however, were known as far back as the Acadian
era, is shown by a bilingual text (K 5139) which enjoins the abgal, or 'chief prophet', to declare
that the father must give the life of his child for the sin of his own soul, the child's head for his
head, the child's neck for his neck, the child's breast for his breast." (Hibbert Lectures, p.78,
1887)

APPENDIX F

That the art of irrigation was taken into Egypt by Noah's family seems a likely proposition in
view of the facts that Egypt was called after Ham and Mizraim, that the Egyptian god Amon was
probably the mythological representative of Ham, (**1) and that the least anthropological
discoveries show that a ruling race went down into Egypt from Syria or Armenia at the very
beginning of history. (**2) If, as seems probable, Ham was the first Egyptian ruler we may
reasonably assume that human sacrifice and cannibalism (both of which were practiced in Egypt)
were instituted by him, for from all we gather about him from the Bible and ancient records, he
"went in the way of Cain."

(**1) History of Sanchoniathon's, Bishop Cumberland, p.99
(**2) Ancient Egyptians, Professor Elliot Smith

APPENDIX G

The hymn to Enlil reminds one of the answer given by the controlling spirit of a modern
medium. When asked, "Do you know of any such spirit as a person we call the Devil?" the reply
was, "We certainly do, and yet this same Devil is our God our Father." (From Spiritualism, by
the Rev. H.R. Anderson, M.A.)

APPENDIX FA

Sir James Frazer writes: "Apuleius, when he was initiated into the mysteries, says that Isis, the
Egyptian Ishtar, revealed herself to him in the following words: 'I am nature, the parent of things,
mistress of the elements, the beginning of ages, sovereign of the gods, Queen of the manes, the
first of heavenly beings. My divinity uniform in itself is honored under different names, various
rites, the Phrygians call me Persimuntca "mother goddess" the Cecropians "Minerva" the people
of Cyprus "Paphian Venus," the arrow armed Cretans, "Diana Dictyana," the goddess who
divines the secret of the gods." (Golden Bough). Here we find Diana connected with Ishtar and
surely her title (as above) refers to Eve and the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

APPENDIX H

Philology is often regarded as a broken reed to lean upon, and the following suggestion may be
though fantastic, but seeing that Cain was probably the instigator of "cannibalism" is it not
possible that that word was derived by him? The writer quoted below gives his opinion that the
probable derivation of the word is cahna bal, "the priest of Bal," cahna being the emphatic form
of cahn "a priest." Very suggestively Josephus calls priestly garments Cahanaeae. (Antiquities
of the Jews, Book III, c.7) "The word cannibal is said by some to be derived from Carib, the
name of the people of the Caribbean Islands. But the derivation is very forced and unnatural.
Shakespeare used 'cannibal' as a well-recognized term in his time for eaters of human flesh, and
as the West Indies had only been discovered ninety to a hundred years before and the name of

( Page 75 )

'Carib' was not known until much later, it could hardly have been corrupted into 'cannibal', nor
is there the slightest evidence that such a forced and unlikely corruption ever took place." (**1)
This writer offers no new theory regarding the name "cannibal", perhaps if he, too, had regarded
Cain as the first high priest of Bel, and the inventor of the ghastly custom of eating human flesh,
he might also have suggested that the word was derived from Cain.

(**1) Hislop. Two Babylon's, p.232

APPENDIX I

The Dragon of China is believed to have power to give or to withhold rain. "On one occasion
there was a long and severe drought which the Dragon refused to mitigate in spite of curses
lavished upon him. As, notwithstanding numerous processions, the Dragon persisted in not
sending rain, the indignant Emperor launched against him a thundering edict, and condemned
him to perpetual exile on the borders of the river Ili, in the province of Torgot. The sentence was
about to be executed and the criminal was proceeding with touching resignation to cross the
deserts of Tartary, and undergo his punishment on the frontiers of Turkistan, when the supreme
courts of Peking, touched with compassion, went in a body to throw themselves at the feet of the
Emperor and ask pardon for the poor Devil." (Chinese Empire, by M. Huc.)

[End of book]

New Crusade Christian Church

Calling The People of Britain

Celtic-Anglo-Saxon-Nordic-Germanic Kindred in Europe

and overseas realms

Tel. No. 01424 730163 E-mail nccc@onetel.com

( Page 76 )

THE NEW CHRISTIAN CRUSADE

CHURCH

CALLING THE PEOPLE OF BRITAIN

At last the bible makes sense!

At last we know its meaning.

Its the book of the RACE

"For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the

Word of the Lord from Jerusalem"

(Isaiah 2:3).”

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
1919 The Magnificent Ambersons by Booth Tarkington
Barbara Cartland The Magnificent Marriage
guns of the magnificent seven
Spider Robinson The Magnificent Conspiracy
Napisz OPOWIADANIE zaczynające się od słów All the afternoon we travelled along the magnificent road
The Magnificent Seven Elmer Bernstein
the guns of the magnificent seven
partitur the magnificent seven
Robinson, Spider The Magnificent Conspiracy
FIDE Trainers Surveys 2015 09 02 Jovan Petronic The Magnificent Seven
The Mask by Sian265 & Sydney Alexis
Science and the Infinite Sydney T Klein
Turn the Page by SydneyAlice COMPLETE
Mr Purr fect and the Geek Gon Sidney Bristol
Hardt Helen Trusting Sydney (The Temptation Saga #6) (1)
Czasowniki modalne The modal verbs czesc I
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
Christmas around the world

więcej podobnych podstron